Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

FORTH ROAD BRIDGE ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

"to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to the Forth Road Bridge,"presented by Mr. Westwood; and ordered (under Section 9 of the Act) to be read a Second time upon Thursday, 3rd April, and to be printed. [Bill 55.]

SERVICE PENSIONS (PETITION)

Mr. Alex. Anderson: I beg to present to this House a Petition organised by the Next-of-Kin of War Deceased Organisation of Scotland. This Petition, which has been signed by over 100,000 people throughout Scotland, states that it is the belief of the petitioners that a grave injustice and hardship has been caused to relatives and dependants of deceased ex-Servicemen and women because of the refusal of His Majesty's Government to grant pensions without the means test. The Petition concludes with the prayer:
Wherefore your petitioners pray that legislation should be passed forthwith to cancel the means test, thus compensating all parents by an allowance for loss sustained by the call-up of sons and daughters or by a suitable pension if killed, thus showing appreciation for the sacrifice made by the parents.
To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Air Mail Services

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when a schedule of air mail services from this country will be advertised by post offices.

The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Burke): Particulars of the air mail services to countries abroad are advertised in the Air Mail Leaflet, of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General consider advertising in the windows of the post offices as was done before the war, and will he bear in mind that to do so will be of great assistance to traders with other countries?

Mr. Burke: The air mail leaflet will be available at all post offices.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman put it in the windows?

Mr. Price-White: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the rates of postage for air-mail letters and letter-cards from this country to Services personnel at present undergoing training in Southern Rhodesia; and what are the equivalent rates in the case of Services personnel mail to this country from Southern Rhodesia.

Mr. Burke: Under wartime arrangements which are still in force, all letters up to one ounce in weight posted in this country for the Forces in Southern Rhodesia are forwarded by air at the ordinary surface postage of 1½d.; heavier letters are forwarded by air, if specially prepaid for air transmission at the rate of 6d. for the first 1½ ounces and 6d. for each succeeding half ounce. The postal service from the Forces in Southern Rhodesia is provided by the Southern Rhodesian Administration whose present charges for air conveyance to the United Kingdom are, I understand, 6d. for lightweight air letters and 1s. 3d. per half ounce for other letters.

Mr. Price-White: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable dissatisfaction among Service personnel in


Southern Rhodesia because they have to pay approximately three times the postage for letters sent from there to this country as is charged for those which are sent in the opposite direction, and will he undertake a reciprocal arrangement whereby the rates are equalised?

Mr. Burke: We are carrying on what was a wartime concession for letters sent from this country. The Southern Rhodesian authorities very generously made a similar concession during the war but they had the right to decide when it should be withdrawn and they have exercised that right.

Telephone Kiosks (Villages)

Squadron-Leader Sir Gifford Fox: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General, why the local authority is being asked for a £4 yearly guarantee for a public telephone kiosk at Waterstock; and, in view of the fact that there has been a public telephone in the village since 1929, if he will erect the kiosk without demanding a guarantee, as the wires and poles already exist.

Mr. Burke: Circumstances at Water-stock justify the provision of a public telephone kiosk without contribution from the local authority and the kiosk will be erected as soon as the labour and supplies position permits.

Sir G. Fox: Will the Assistant Postmaster-General say why it was necessary to put this question and why a local authority was being blackmailed to pay this charge?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and gallant Member asked why should a local authority be blackmailed. That is an insinuation and should not be used.

Sir G. Fox: I am sorry. I used a stronger word than I intended. I will withdraw and will substitute: "Why are they forced to pay this £4"?

Mr. Burke: Local authorities are asked to make this contribution so that the Department can judge the amount of business that is likely to be available in that district. In this case a mistake was made because at the time there was temporarily no post office there.

Mr. Jennings: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this is the same policy that the

electricity undertakings in this country under private enterprise have been carrying on for years?

Mr. Burke: I have nothing to do with electricity.

Sir G. Fox: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General the number of villages where no telephone kiosk exists giving 24-hour service; and those where there is a limited service during office hours of the post office.

Mr. Burke: I regret that the information asked for in the first part of the Question is not available. As regards the second part, the number is approximately 2,000.

Sir G. Fox: Is the Minister aware that if this telephone business was run by private enterprise these figures would be available, and will he take steps to have this information made available now?

Mr. Burke: It is because it is not being run by private enterprise that we are taking steps, and telephone kiosks will be put in all these 2,000 centres as soon as the supply position eases.

Mr. W. R. Williams: Is it not a fact that it was only because private enterprise made a real mess of the telephone service that it was handed over to the State?

Sir G. Fox: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General when he will erect a telephone kiosk in Drayton St. Leonards, as at present no facilities exist for telephoning outside the ordinary office hours of the sub-post office, in view of the fact that when the post office is shut there is no public telephone within two miles.

Mr. Burke: The provision of a telephone kiosk at Drayton St. Leonards is in hand, but I regret that owing to supply difficulties I do not expect it to be ready for service until about four months' time.

Sir G. Fox: Why is it to take four months when there is a telephone inside the post office, and why cannot the kiosk be built outside the post office, using the same wire and the same poles?

Mr. Burke: We cannot put a telephone outside until we have a kiosk, and we cannot get kiosks because private enterprise cannot supply them.

Bexley (Telephone Applications)

Mr. Bramall: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General how many applications for telephones in the borough of Bexley have been outstanding for more than one, two and three years, respectively.

Mr. Burke: The number of applications for telephones in the borough of Bexley outstanding for more than one year is 1,244, of which 639 have been outstanding for more than two years and 443 for more than three years.

Mr. Bramall: Will my hon. Friend take steps to expedite the provision of telephones in this area where the need is particularly great, even at a time when it is recognised to be great everywhere?

Mr. Burke: As I have told the hon. Gentleman previously in a reply, we are putting down a cable there and are waiting for an extension of the exchange.

Money Order Service (Channel Islands)

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General if he will restore money order facilities between the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom.

Mr. Burke: Yes, Sir. The Money Order service with the Channel Islands will be restored as soon as the necessary warrant, which is now in print, can be brought into operation.

Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that there is no restriction now on the movement of money between the Channel Islands and the United Kingdom and, if that is so, why is there this long delay in restoring the money order facilities?

Mr. Burke: The delay arises from regulations in the Channel Islands regarding the movement of currency. The warrant is ready and will be signed in a day or two, and once it has been laid before Parliament it will be a matter of only about a fortnight.

Staff

Mr. Granville Sharp: asked the Assistant Postmaster-General what increase has been made in the staff of his Department during the last 12 months; what is the present size of the staff and the approximate number of part-time workers; and, in view of the limited resources of

manpower, what action is being taken to offer full-time employment to part-time workers over the age of 45 years rather than recruit additional staff.

Mr. Burke: The increase of Post Office staff during the twelve months ended 31st December, 1946, was 28,036. The total number of Post Office staff on 1st January, 1947, the latest figure available, was 350,901, which included 52,264 part-time staff. All these figures include industrial as well as non-industrial staff. Part-time employees on some manipulative grades have opportunities of advancement to full-time posts under certain conditions even though they may be over 45. If the hon. Member has a particular grade in mind and will communicate with me, I will look into the matter.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: What is the age limit for employment by the Post Office of disabled ex-Servicemen in the Manchester area?

Mr. Burke: It is the same in the Manchester area as in other areas. Special provision is made for regular ex-Servicemen and there are also special conditions for ex-Servicemen who have been disabled up to 45 or 50 years of age in certain cases.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Am I to take it then that there is no age limit but that this has been imposed by someone without authority in Manchester?

Mr. Burke: The age limit in Manchester is similar to that elsewhere.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Hednesford

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he is aware of the poor conditions under which officers and airmen serving at the R.A.F. station, Hednesford, are living; and if he will make investigations, with a view to improving them.

The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Philip Noel-Baker): The Commanding Officer at Hednesford has received no complaints about the living conditions in his station, and none have been received by the Air Ministry in London. Hednesford, however, is a hutted camp, and I know that some hardship was caused during the recent cold weather by the shortage of fuel and by frozen pipes. I hope that some


improvement may be made at Hednesford this year, but I regret that I cannot now predict when the station can be re-built.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that my information is that complaints have been made to the commanding officer and that conditions of living have been described as squalor? May I ask the Minister to have this station looked into because there is very great dissatisfaction there?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I will certainly have it looked into, and I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Member. I asked for a report and I have been assured that the accommodation at Hednesford compares quite favourably with that at our other hutted camps which, of course, leave much to be desired.

Destroyed Kit (Claims)

Sir David Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Air why the claims of junior officers for the replacement of service and personal kit destroyed by fire caused by Egyptian rioters on 21st February, 1946, remain unpaid.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: There is no record in London of the claims to which the hon. Member refers. I have called for a report from the Middle East and I will write to him when it is received.

Sir D. Robertson: Would the right hon. Gentleman accept my assurance that one of my constituents, a flight lieutenant, is one of the victims? Since the fact that there is no information in London is no evidence that the claims do not exist, will he take steps to see that they are paid, because the junior officers have not the means from their slender resources to make good the kit?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Of course, such claims are normally dealt with by the command, but I have asked for a report and I will write to the hon. Member when I receive it.

Photograph Survey

Mr. Eric Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made with the air photograph survey of Great Britain; and when will the results be made available to the public.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The R.A.F. have made air photographs of about two-thirds of the United Kingdom. This photo-

graphy can only be done in clear weather, and in special aircraft, with crews who have special experience and skill. For these reasons, the making of new photographs is not keeping pace with the demand from the Ministry of Town and Country Planning and from other departments. I am considering the question of the general sale of these photographs to the public, but, in view of the shortages of staff and materials, I cannot yet say how soon this can be arranged.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Are these aircraft placed at the disposal of the Archaeological Officer of the Ordnance Survey?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Of course we work very closely with the Ordnance Survey authority and all photographs are made to Ordnance Survey standards, so that I think the Ordnance Survey can obtain roughly what they want.

Mr. Nicholson: But is the Archaeological Officer included?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think so.

Clothing Coupons

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Secretary of State for Air when airmen will be issued with the book of clothing coupons promised for the year commencing 1st October, 1946.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I understand from my right hon. and learned Friend the President of the Board of Trade, that it will not be possible, as we had hoped, to issue clothing coupons to all airmen who had one year or more to serve on 1st October, 1946. Instead, as my right hon. and learned Friend said on 13th March, coupons can be given only to regular airmen. It is hoped that these coupons will be issued in June.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are a number of airmen who cannot enjoy the privilege of wearing civilian clothes because they lack the necessary coupons with which to obtain them?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir. I think such men are mostly regular airmen who have served for a considerable time. They—or most of them—will receive 30 coupons in June and will also be given five coupons for each year of their service since 1941.

Wig Bay

Mr. McKie: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will make a statement regarding future plans for the R.A.F. station at Wig Bay, Wigtownshire.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: The R.A.F. Station at Wig Bay is at present in use as an aircraft storage unit. I regret that it is not yet possible to decide whether it will be required in future as a permanent station.

Mr. McKie: Is the Minister aware of the consternation caused locally by reports that this station is to be closed permanently, and will he bear this very much in mind?

Mr. Noel-Baker: Yes, Sir, I am aware of the representations made by the town council of Stranraer, but of course we must decide our policy about stations in the light of wider considerations.

Care and Maintenance Units

Mr. Thomas Reid: asked the Secretary of State for Air if he will arrange to reduce the maintenance staffs at several aerodromes.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I am glad to assure my hon. Friend that the establishments of all stations of the R.A.F. are kept under constant review, and that every effort is made to reduce the care and maintenance staff to the lowest numbers who can do the job. If, however, he will let me know of any airfields at which he thinks a special inquiry should be made, I will take the necessary action.

Mr. Reid: Is my right hon. Friend aware that at several maintenance units in the Swindon district the men have informed me that they have practically nothing to do?

Mr. Noel-Baker: If my hon. Friend will give me the details I will be very glad to do anything required.

Mr. Tolley: Can my right hon Friend say how many of these units are still being maintained and how many it is intended to close in the immediate future?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I think I had better have notice of that Question.

Discharge Purchase

Mr. Geoffrey Cooper: asked the Secretary of State for Air if, in view of

the fact that many men in the R.A.F. joined for regular service for a settled number of years and are now, owing to the changed economic position of the country, wanting to enter productive industry, facilities can now be re-introduced immediately to enable them to purchase their discharge in accordance with the provisions in K.Rs. and A.C.Is., paragraphs 636–644.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Under the King's Regulations to which my hon. Friend refers, these airmen could only purchase their discharge, if there would be no detriment to the Service. With the present shortage of trained men, however, the R.A.F. would certainly suffer if regular airmen were released before they had served their time. My hon. Friend will be aware that airmen are now released, when that is appropriate, on compassionate grounds, and without payment of any kind. What system should in future be adopted is not under consideration.

Mr. Cooper: Does my right hon. Friend realise that some of these men are technicians, and the requirements of industry being as great as if not greater than those of the Services, will he take this matter into consideration when looking into it?

Mr. Noel-Baker: I am aware of that, but unfortunately it is these highly trained people who are in the shortest supply in the Royal Air Force.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Fatalities

Mr. William Shepherd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation the number of casualties per passenger mile which took place on scheduled flights operated by British companies during 1946.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation (Mr. Lindgren): The number of passenger fatalities on scheduled flights operated by United Kingdom companies during 1946 was 8.2 per 100 million passenger miles. This information was published on 13th March last in a statistical survey of accidents on regular air services, a copy of which I am sending to the hon. Member.

Mr. Shepherd: Is the Parliamentary Secretary able to say how this compares with the rate in the United States?

Mr. Lindgren: Yes, Sir. For 1946, the rate in the United States was 2.3 per 100 million miles, as against 8.2 for this country. In 1945, the rate for this country was nil, because we were fortunate in having no accidents, while the rate for the United States was in the same region. It would be wrong to draw inferences on safety from the figures.

Lord John Hope: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say how these figures compare with the last year before the war?

Mr. Lindgren: The figures are very much better. The figure for 1926–30 was 54.2; for 1931–35, 35.3; for 1936–40, 15.3, and for 1941–45, 9.4.

Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend keep before him the fact that while these statistics are interesting, the main thing is the survival chances of passengers in aeroplanes in the event of accidents?

Colonel Ropner: In view of the fact that these figures will probably obtain considerable publicity, could not the Parliamentary Secretary arrange for the Press to be given figures which are comparable, where the noughts are not confused? The percentages he gave in the last part of his reply are meaningless, unless they refer to the mileage covered.

Mr. Lindgren: The statement issued to the Press on 13th March gave the number of operational flights, stage flights, passenger miles, passengers carried, and the figures have been given fairly good publicity, particularly in the trade Press.

Detention of Aircraft

Air-Commodore Harvey: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation in what circumstances have civil airport authorities the power to prohibit aircraft captains from initiating their own flights.

Mr. Lindgren: Under Article 10 of the Air Navigation (Consolidation) Order, 1923, an aircraft may be detained at an airport by any person authorised by my noble Friend for such reasons as failure to comply with the requirements of that Order as regards certification of airworthiness, licences or certificates of competency of the air crew, and observance of customs regulations, and in addition, if its intended flight appears

likely to infringe any provisions of that Order and to cause danger. Under paragraph 4 of Schedule II, the Minister has power to detain a passenger or goods aircraft that he believes to be in a condition unfit for flight.

Air-Commodore Harvey: Does that mean that the pilot decides in the case of weather conditions whether or not he takes off?

Mr. Lindgren: Absolutely.

British Cameroons

Dr. Segal: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation when it is proposed to establish a regular air service to the British Cameroons, and how frequently it will operate.

Mr. Lindgren: West Africa is at present served by a thrice-weekly air service from the United Kingdom terminating at Lagos. An extension to the British Cameroons of this trunk service would not be justified by the traffic potential, and is not at present contemplated. A proposal to operate an air service between Lagos and the British Cameroons is, however, under consideration by the West African air transport authority, but it is unlikely that it could be started in the immediate future, having regard to uncertainties regarding aircraft deliveries and provision of other resources.

Dr. Segal: Does the Minister realise the very important part such an air service will play in developing that region, and that the only direct access today is by a French airline?

Mr. Lindgren: That is appreciated, and consultations are taking place between the Secretary of State for the Colonies and his Under-Secretary, and my noble Friend and myself. We are fortunate in those consultations, in that the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has had very recent experience in West Africa and a very extensive knowledge of my Department.

Trans-Sahara Route

Dr. Segal: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation the earliest possible date on which the B.O.A.C. Trans-Sahara route to Kano and Lagos is likely to come into operation; and how frequently it will run.

Mr. Lindgren: It is the long-term plan to operate the air service to West Africa via the Sahara, and this will be done as soon as suitable aircraft are available for the purpose. It is not possible at this stage to say precisely when this will be. In the meantime, the service to Lagos, which at present operates three times a week, and will shortly be increased in frequency, will continue by the coastal route.

Dr. Segal: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that both the French and the Belgians have already forestalled us in establishing a direct air service to this important British Colony?

Mr. Lindgren: That is so, but they are operating Skymasters, and these aircraft are not available to B.O.A.C.

Deficiency Payments (Statutory Corporations)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation the total amount of deficiency payments made on account of the national airlines up to the latest convenient date.

Mr. Lindgren: Under the authority of the British Overseas Airways Act, 1939, and the Civil Aviation Act, 1946, £15,245,546 was paid to the statutory Corporations during the period 1st April, 1940, to 28th February, 1947, in the form of deficiency grants and advances.

B.E.A. (Scottish Interests)

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Civil Aviation what steps he proposes to take to secure further representation of Scottish interests on the Board of British European Airways.

Mr. Lindgren: On the formation of the Scottish Advisory Council, my noble Friend appointed its chairman to the board of British European Airways Corporation, and he does not consider that any further appointment is necessary to ensure that adequate consideration is given to Scottish interests by that board.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that in spite of what his noble Friend thinks, public opinion in Scotland thinks precisely the opposite?

Mr. Lindgren: No, Sir. My information is that informed opinion in Scotland

appreciates that in addition to direct representation on the board, there are a Scottish Advisory Council, a Scottish Aerodromes Board, and also a Scottish Division of B.E.A.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that when something might have been referred to the Scottish Advisory Council, they were ignored altogether?

Mr. Lindgren: If I may respectfully say so, that is not a statement of fact. If the reference is to the removal of G.C.A. equipment from Prestwick, the chairman of the Scottish Advisory Council was consulted. There was no opportunity to consult the full Board, because quick action was necessary as it was a matter of urgent safety in regard to the possible deterioration of weather conditions in the London region.

Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Why have a board if you are going to consult only one man?

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMANY

Control Commission Staff

Mr. Douglas Marshall: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the entitlement of accommodation in space and rooms for a chief control officer in Germany and also for a control officer, Grade 3; similarly, what is the allocation of space allowed to Germans.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. John Hynd): The scales of married quarters for civilian officers of the Control Commission for Germany are still under consideration. Single quarters are allocated on scales similar to those applicable to army officers of equivalent rank. A chief control officer is entitled, in theory, to a sitting room, if available, of 200 square feet and a bedroom of 150 square feet, and a control officer III a bed-sitting room of 300 square feet, but in the special conditions in Germany accommodation actually provided is normally greatly below entitlement. In addition officers share the use of a mess and ante-room. There are no standard allocations of space to Germans.

Mr. Pritt: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why a control officer, Grade I, whose name has been


given to him, with 21 years' engineering experience, is now being employed in the control office as a chief clerk sorting letters at a total pay of over a £1,000 a year.

Mr. J. Hynd: The officer in question is employed in the Control Commission in Germany, not in the Control Office. The work on which he was originally engaged has now been handed over to Germans, and he is under consideration for transfer to another branch. It is the practice in the Hanover Region for new staff to serve two to four weeks in statistical and information rooms to enable them to learn something of the lay-out of local industries and Government. The work may involve a certain amount of routine clerical duties.

Mr. Pritt: In view of the high technical qualifications and trade union experience of this man, will the Minister take particular care that he is not victimised by people who are attempting to victimise him at present?

Mr. Hynd: I do not see why I should be required to give a guarantee of non-victimisation in any particular case, unless there is a suggestion of the possibility of victimisation. This officer was recruited for his engineering experience for a technical job which is now redundant, because of the amount of work which is being handed over to the Germans. The question of his transfer to another branch, in which his particular experience and qualifications will fit in, is under consideration.

Mr. Pritt: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the reason why this man should not be victimised is that the hon. Gentleman himself has already promised me orally that he would not be victimsed whereas, in fact, he has been?

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what were the qualifications of Mr. Dyson, chief of the commerce division, prior to joining the Control Commission for Germany, for the post which he now holds.

Mr. J. Hynd: Mr. Dyson has a long record of successful business operation in the United Kingdom. He was appointed to the Control Commission for Germany about a year ago to take charge of the Commerce Branch of Trade and Industry Division. It was because of his

success as head of that branch that he was appointed Chief of the newly formed Commerce Division in December last.

Mr. Stokes: But business covers a multitude of sins. Can my hon. Friend say what kind of activity this man was engaged in, because I have not the slightest idea?

Mr. Hynd: I understand that it was a large mail order business which operated from Preston.

Mr. Sharp: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the number of staff employed by the Control Office for Germany and Austria in 1946–47 which compares with the estimate of 2,373 for 1947–48.

Mr. J. Hynd: The comparable figure was about 2,450.

Major Tufton Beamish: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether Control Commission in Germany personnel, who receive invitations from Germans in Germany to stay with them, are allowed to accept the invitations.

Mr. J. Hynd: No, Sir; not at present, but the question is under consideration.

Mr. Gammans: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if he is aware that the allowances being paid to Mrs. J. A. Thompson, 8, Granville Road, N.4, have now been stopped; that the family have no means except the tuberculosis grant; and why there has been a delay of two months in dealing with this urgent matter.

Mr. J. Hynd: Yes, Sir. Mr. Thompson has now had the full three months' paid sick leave to which he was entitled. It has not been possible to reach an earlier decision owing to the very full and careful investigation which has been made into all the circumstances of the case. The medical report has now been received from Germany, and a decision should be possible in the next few days.

Mr. Gammans: Is the hon. Gentleman admitting that it takes over two months before he can give a decision in an urgent matter of this sort? Must I put down Questions week after week, in order to get elementary justice for a family in my constituency which is rapidly becoming destitute?

Mr. Hynd: It would be simple enough to give a decision in a short time, but in matters of this kind I think it is in the interests of the person concerned that we should make a full investigation to ascertain whether or not he has a claim.

Mr. Gammans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept liablity for the fact that this man contracted tuberculosis as a result of his work in Germany for the Control Commission?

Mr. Hynd: That is precisely the point which is under investigation.

Mail Censorship

Mr. D. Marshall: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many British and how many German personnel are employed on censorship of mail from Germany; what is the cost of this censorship; and how long is the mail delayed in transit.

Mr. J. Hynd: There are 15 British and 400 Germans now employed on this work. The cost of the British staff is just over £7,000 a year; the German staff are paid from German sources. Normally, mail is not delayed more than two days.

Mr. Marshall: Is the Minister aware that the information I have received shows that the delay is 15 days?

Mr. Hynd: Tests have been made, and I believe there have been exceptional cases of delays up to 13 or 15 days, but that is not normal.

Mr. Martin Lindsay: Can the hon. Gentleman say how much longer it will be necessary to impose this censorship?

Mr. Hynd: As long as it is considered necessary by the Control Commission for security and other reasons.

Mr. Stokes: As all the exceptional cases seem to come my way, will my hon. Friend have all the envelopes in my mail examined after they have arrived a month or more after despatch?

Mr. Wilson Harris: Can the hon. Gentleman say why a postcard was censored because it had a picture of the Virgin Mary on the back?

Mr. Hynd: It was not because that was a specific restriction; the restriction applies to illustrated cards in general.

Sports Organisations

Mr. D. Marshall: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the limitation of sport in Germany agreed by the quadrupartite Powers.

Mr. J. Hynd: The agreement of 17th December, 1945, provides that all sports organisations which existed before the defeat of Germany should be dissolved, that sports organisations should be restricted to Kreis level, except with the permission of zone commanders, and that sport should be supervised to ensure that while it serves the needs of health, hygiene and recreation, it is free from all military or para-military activities.

Police, Lübbecke

Mr. Pritt: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that the present chief of police at Lübbecke was formerly the deputy chief of police at the same place during the Nazi règime; and what steps will he take about this employment of a former Nazi in such an important position.

Mr. J. Hynd: There is no chief of police in Lübbecke. The divisional inspector is not a former Nazi, nor was he deputy chief of police during the Nazi règime.

Postal Delay

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he is aware that a letter posted in Berlin on 6th February was delivered in London on 5th March; and what steps he will take to improve this service.

Mr. J. Hynd: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave him on 10th March in answer to a similar Question.

Mr. Stokes: Is my hon. Friend aware that this delay had nothing whatever to do with censorship which may cause delay in individual cases? Can he say whether, when a spot censorship is taken, those letters which are not selected for censorship are sent on?

Mr. Hynd: In answer to a previous Question, I invited my hon. Friend to send me particulars of cases he had in mind. Without these particulars I cannot go into these questions.

Mr. Stokes: Then I shall have to send my hon. Friend practically the whole of my morning mail.

Claims for Damages

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether the ruling whereby no German can obtain damages from a member of the occupational Forces in the British zone, no matter what injury he has been done, can be rescinded; and whether he will take steps to publicise any change of policy he may make in this connection.

Mr. J. Hynd: I am considering the setting up of machinery for dealing with claims by Germans in respect of injuries occasioned in the British zone by the acts or omissions of the British Forces of occupation and Control Service. The answer to the second part of the Question is in the affirmative.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Does my hon. Friend realise that if the present arrangement continues it puts a premium on carelessness and vindictiveness? Can he say how long it wit be before the step he contemplates is taken?

Mr. Hynd: The step is already being taken. I hope that results will be forthcoming soon, but I cannot give a date.

War Crimes Trials

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the number of those held in camps in the British zone awaiting trial; and why it is that many have remained in this state for nearly two years.

Mr. J. Hynd: 18,900 persons are awaiting trial as members of criminal organisations convicted at Nuremberg. These trials could not begin till the Nuremberg verdict was known, and it is planned that they shall be completed by the end of 1947. In addition, there are about 1,500 persons held in civil internment camps, whose cases are being investigated for suspected individual war crimes either against ourselves or our Allies. Their cases are being dealt with with all possible expedition with a view to their early disposal.

Mr. Stokes: Can my hon. Friend tell us how many tribunals have been set up to try these cases?

Mr. Hynd: To try the bulk of the 18,900 Nuremberg cases we anticipate that 100 tribunals will be sufficient to complete the work.

Displaced Persons

Mr. Stokes: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether communication No. 226 of 7th February, issued by the Director of U.N.R.R.A. Chief 804, to all camps under his direction, concerning the declaration of assets possessed in foreign currency and investments held by displaced persons, had his approval; and what steps he is taking to ensure that the displaced persons do not suffer any loss thereby.

Mr. J. Hynd: The notice referred to in the Question implements instructions issued under my authority. Records are being kept of foreign currencies and instruments of title surrendered or declared in order that such assets may be returned to displaced persons before their final departure from Germany.

Mr. Stokes: Does my hon. Friend's answer—I did not hear it all—mean that these assets will be returned to displaced persons before they leave the camps in which they are now residing?

Mr. Hynd: Yes, Sir. That is the purpose for which records are being kept.

Major Beamish: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by whom displaced persons camps in the British zones of Germany and Austria will be administered when U.N.R.R.A. ceases to function in June, 1947; whether he is aware that many U.N.R.R.A. personnel, with 18 months' experience of camp administration have now accepted other jobs as from next June; and whether he will issue immediate instructions for Control Commission in Germany to take over adequate staff to administer all displaced persons camps when U.N.R.R.A. closes down.

Mr. J. Hynd: Authority has been given to our authorities in Germany to recruit staff for this purpose, and it is hoped that a number of existing U.N.R.R.A. officials will accept these appointments. Arrangements for Austria are under consideration. The terms under which the administration of displaced persons is to be carried out will be subject to negotiation with the International Refugee Organisation.

Major Beamish: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster why the order that all employable displaced persons should do some form of work and


that, to this end, camps in which they are now situated may be split up, does not apply to Jewish displaced persons; and whether he is aware that, as a result of this order, Jewish displaced persons can only do work within easy travelling distance of their camps, and that, therefore, large numbers of employable Jews will remain in idleness.

Mr. J. Hynd: The order that all employable displaced persons are liable to be directed to employment does apply to Jews. The majority of the Jewish displaced persons in the British zone of Germany are, however, accommodated at one large assembly centre, for convenience in meeting their religious needs and supplying them with Jewish foods, and they have been exempted from liability to be moved away from their camp for work. Numbers of them will be employed on essential services in the camp itself, while other employment in the neighbourhood of the camp is expected to absorb the remainder of those employable.

Evicted Germans

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster the approximate number of Germans living in the British zone who have been evicted from their former homes since the end of the war; how many of these have been provided with alternative accommodation; how many have been allowed to return to the homes from which they were evicted; and whether compensation is given for furniture and goods they were compelled to leave behind that has been destroyed, stolen or damaged.

Mr. J. Hynd: These figures cannot be provided without undue expenditure of time and labour. Alternative accommodation for displaced Germans is provided by the German local authorities, who also pay compensation for goods unduly damaged or not returned when properties are derequisitioned.

Mr. Sorensen: Can my hon. Friend now announce that no further evictions will take place, and that no more furniture and goods will be taken from German families?

Mr. Hynd: I am not sure whether I got the last part of my hon. Friend's supplementary correctly, but compensation is provided, and paid, by the German authorities. So long as it is necessary for our staff and their families to be provided with

German accommodation, it is not possible to guarantee that there will be no further evictions.

Mr. Sorensen: But cannot something be done on humane grounds? Surely compensation should be adequate to cover these losses?

Mr. Hynd: We have, of course, to share out the available furniture in the zone unless we are to import furniture from this country or elsewhere. We are producing as much furniture as facilities in Germany will permit. We have amended the regulations for the requisitioning of furniture, to enable the Germans to take essential furniture with them.

Salvation Army

Mr. Beswiek: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if the Salvation Army is banned in the British zone of Germany.

Mr. J. Hynd: No, Sir.

Mr. Berry: Will my hon. Friend see that the principle of the Atlantic Charter with regard to freedom of worship will be applied to the whole of the occupied zones in Germany?

Mr. Hynd: That is a wider question. The answer concerned the Salvation Army, whose activities have not been stopped.

Requisitioning of Houses

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster whether he will make a statement about the recent demonstration by German citizens of Düsseldorf against the requisitioning of houses there for B.A.O.R. families.

Mr. J. Hynd: I am informed that a small and orderly demonstration took place in Düsseldorf on Sunday, 23rd March, to protest against the proposed requisitioning of houses containing 19 German families for the purpose of accommodating British families. The reception of British families in Düsseldorf has been suspended since last December in order to avoid disturbance of the Germans during the winter months, and I am informed that it is now proposed to receive British families at the rate of 30 per month from April onwards. The German authorities have agreed that at this rate of intake, displaced Germans


can be provided with suitable alternative accoommodation which is being derequisitioned by the British authorities west of the river.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my hon. Friend aware that in this case it was precisely because no alternative accommodation was being offered to these people who were being evicted that they demonstrated in this way?

Oral Answers to Questions — NIGERIA (TELEPHONE SERVICE)

Dr. Segal: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that no direct telephonic communication exists between Enugu, the capital of the Eastern Province of Nigeria, and Lagos; and when he intends to see that this is established

The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Creech Jones): I am informed that it has not been possible to open the trunk telephone line between Enugu and Lagos owing to the heavy increase of telegraphic traffic necessitating the use of all wires for telegraphic purposes. I cannot say when the Nigerian Government will find it possible to open the line, but part of the equipment ordered by that government to facilitate simultaneous use of wires for speech and telegraphy, which has been on order for a considerable time, has now arrived in Nigeria, and the remainder is expected shortly.

Dr. Segal: Surely, during the war telephone lines were laid to the extent of a thousand miles or more, and were scarcely used at all. Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that there is an enormous amount of traffic between these two places?

Mr. Creech Jones: We all appreciate the importance of developing the service, and the Nigerian Government are doing all that it is possible to do.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL COMMISSION ON PRESS (MEMBERSHIP)

Mr. Haydn Davies: asked the Prime Minister whether he is in a position to announce the appointment of a Royal Commission to inquire into the Press, its membership and terms of reference.

Mr. Butcher: asked the Prime Minister if he will now give the names of the chairman and other members of the Royal Commission on the Press; and if he will state the terms of reference.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir. The King has been pleased to approve the setting up of a Royal Commission to inquire into the Press, with the following terms of reference:
With the object of furthering the free expression of opinion through the Press and the greatest practicable accuracy in the presentation of news, to inquire into the control, management and ownership of the newspaper and periodical Press and the news agencies, including the financial structure and the monopolistic tendencies in control, and to make recommendations thereon.
The membership of the Royal Commission is as follows:

Sir (William) David Ross, K.B.E., D.Litt. (Chairman).
The Reverend Melbourn Evans Aubrey, C.H.
Mr. Neil S. Beaton.
Mr. John Benstead, C.B.E.
Lady Violet Bonham Carter.
Mr. Robert Charles Kirkwood Ensor.
Mr. Hubert Hull, C.B.E.
Miss Eirwen Mary Owen, O.B.E.
Mr. John Boynton Priestley.
Alderman Wright Robinson.
Mr. Gilbert Granville Sharp.
Lord Simon of Wythenshawe, LL.D., M.I.C.E., M.I.Mech.E.
Sir (Charles) Geoffrey Vickers, V.C.
Sir George Alexander Waters, J.P.
Mr. Reginald Holmes Wilson.
Mrs. Barbara Frances Wootton.
Mr. George Malcolm Young, C.B.

Mr. Davies: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his most excellent and satisfactory reply, could I ask him whether the Royal Warrant of Appointment will confer adequate powers upon the Commission to discharge their functions, and whether the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921, will apply to the Commission? Lastly, may I ask him whether all the evidence will be taken in public, and afterwards printed in full, seeing that all newspapers may not, in self defence, want to print all the evidence?

The Prime Minister: With regard to the first point, the right is reserved, if it is thought necessary in the course of the Commission's inquiry, to ask Parliament to apply to the Commission the provisions of the Tribunal of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921. With regard to the procedure, that is a matter for the Royal Commission themselves to settle.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: May I ask whether the proposed new 600 local newspapers to be tied to the Socialist Party will start publication before or after the Royal Commission reports?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid I have no information on that subject.

Mr. Nally: Is the Prime Minister quite satisfied that the Royal Commission's terms of reference are sufficiently wide to permit a full investigation into the circumstances under which a newspaper of the "Express" group continues to pay bribes to Members of this House to supply reports of private and confidential meetings in this House?

Mr. Oliver Stanley: On a point of Order. The hon. Gentleman has said that a newspaper is paying bribes to a Member of this House. That means that a Member of this House is accepting bribes. Should not the hon. Member now substantiate that statement, and, if not, is it not a breach of Privilege?

Mr. Speaker: To accuse any hon. Member of accepting bribes is, of course, entirely out of Order. The accusation should never have been made, and it should be withdrawn.

Mr. Nally: I hasten to withdraw it. Could I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if I could put myself in Order by inserting the word "alleged"?

Mr. Speaker: If the withdrawal is made, it must be complete. It is a most improper accusation.

Mr. Nally: In that case, in deference to you, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw. The Royal Commission can, no doubt, pursue the matter further.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member will please withdraw unreservedly.

Mr. Nally: In that case I withdraw unreservedly, and I apologise to you, Sir, for the time you have had to take on this matter.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: On that point of Order. Even though the allegation has been withdrawn, this must strike at the confidence of the people of this country in the honour of Members of this House. Can the matter be allowed to rest there?

Mr. Speaker: I am not certain. I do not think it is a breach of Privilege

because it was withdrawn unreservedly, but that is a matter which might be taken into consideration later on.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Will it be erased from HANSARD, Mr. Speaker?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Driberg: Will my right hon. Friend take any steps he can to see that journalists giving evidence before the Royal Commission are not victimised?

The Prime Minister: Obviously, if anybody is victimised for giving evidence, that is a matter which will have to be looked into. I do not think that it is a matter to be gone into now on the appointment of the Commission.

Mr. Eden: Mr. Speaker, might I ask your guidance on this matter of Privilege? Did I understand you to say that that matter might be further considered? Is the position that you will have under consideration the question whether or not a breach of Privilege has been made?

Mr. Speaker: I would like to consider it, because I am not quite clear in my own mind, but it certainly would not prejudice the matter if it were raised again. I just make it clear that this is not to be regarded as the only opportunity upon which the matter may be raised.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES

Deserters (Surrender)

Commander Noble: asked the Minister of Defence whether deserters giving themselves up overseas as a result of the recent statement are receiving the same treatment as deserters surrendering in this country.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. A. V. Alexander): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Michael Foot: Is it not a fact that deserters who surrender in this country, but whose units are stationed abroad, are sent abroad for trial; that this involves a considerable amount of delay; and does the right hon. Gentleman think their journeys are really necessary?

Mr. Alexander: If my hon. Friend brings a particular case to my notice I will look into it.

Training

Brigadier Low: asked the Minister of Defence how many months' training is required in the R.N., the Army and the R.A.F., respectively, before a man is so adequately trained that after 60 days' part-time service he may be counted on as a trained member of the Reserve; and whether this period has to be increased, and by how much, when the trainee is engaged in occupational guard duties.

Mr. Alexander: Training periods vary considerably between different trades and between the Services. They would not be materially affected by employment on guard duties performed in the normal course of service.

Brigadier Low: Could the right hon. Gentleman not tell us what training periods are necessary? If he does not tell us, how are we reasonably to discuss this matter on the National Service Bill?

Mr. Alexander: I am quite sure the hon. and gallant Member recognises the great variety of trades and occupations now included in the Armed Forces. The periods of training vary very considerably. If he is anxious to know each detail I am certainly prepared to send them to him.

Brigadier Low: Surely the Government must have come to some decision on this? I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to give the House the benefit of that decision.

Mr. Alexander: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman means a decision upon the use of armed guards, the training periods are known. But there is a great variety involved, and I do not want to delay the House with a long list. If the hon. and gallant Member wants them specially, I will have them sent to him.

Mr. Chetwynd: Could the right hon. Gentleman say the maximum amount of training spent in any one arm of the Services; is it 12 months or 18 months?

Mr. Alexander: In some skilled trades it may be over 18 months before a man becomes fully trained.

Mr. Frank Byers: Is it not possible for the Minister to give the shortest and the longest periods in each Service? Otherwise, how are we to discuss this on the National Service Bill? How can we come to a decision?

Mr. Alexander: It would be possible to give an answer of that kind, but I have had to deal with the Question that was put to me.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Milk Retailers (Change)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Food why he will not permit the public to change their milk suppliers, since much dissatisfaction is felt at the present system which ties many buyers to unsatisfactory sellers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Edith Summerskill): As the hon. Member will know, the question of milk distribution is still under consideration. At the moment consumers have to register with one particular retailer in the interests of fair and economical distribution, but we do allow people to transfer from retailers who are not giving as good a service as can reasonably be expected of them.

Mr. Osborne: Is it generally known that individuals can change their retailers? I have had several complaints made of petty victimisation, where suppliers and buyers have quarrelled, whereby elderly people are put to great inconvenience; and could it be made clear that they have the right to change?

Dr. Summerskill: People can only change if, for instance, the retailer is not prepared to supply pasteurised or tuberculin-tested milk, or if there is persistent slackness in delivery, or if perhaps the standard of cleanliness is rather low. There is no other reason.

Mr. Henry Usborne: Is the hon. Lady satisfied that the service is reasonable; and what is the definition of "reasonable"?

Dr. Summerskill: If a complaint is made we examine it, and if we are satisfied we allow the person to change.

Squadron-Leader Fleming: Has not the hon. Lady made a slight mistake, when she says people can change? Has she forgotten the case of the Co-operative Society, as is happening in Manchester, the members of which, when that society buys out an ordinary private enterprise undertaking, have the right, either to go to a new retailer or to stay with the old one?

Dr. Summerskill: We undertook that members of the Co-operative Society could stay with them, in the same way as customers of a private firm could stay with that firm.

Lord John Hope: Is not the hon. Lady aware that she told me in a letter months ago that this question was being investigated; and can she say when the result of that investigation will be published?

Dr. Summerskill: We have had a committee sitting, and I have given the House the names of the members of the committee. We hope they will report very soon.

U.S. Turkeys

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Food how the allocation of the large turkeys from the U.S.A. will be made; and whether it will be possible to make some available to butchers in mining areas for cooking and selling in sandwiches.

Mr. Sidney Shephard: asked the Minister of Food what arrangements he proposes to make to enable small families to purchase portions of the turkeys from the U.S.A. when these birds become available.

Dr. Summerskill: I would refer my hon. Friends to the reply given to the hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) on 24th March. If arrangements for the purchase of these turkeys are concluded we will consider the possibility of allocating some to butchers in mining areas for sale to miners' canteens, where they could be included in the packed meals, to which it is assumed my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Murray: Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply will give great satisfaction—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—because at the present time the butchers do not know how to give people something to eat during the week?

Sir T. Moore: Is the hon. Lady aware that the average weight of these turkeys is 34 lb.; that it takes three years for a turkey to achieve that weight; and that, therefore, the turkeys are so tough that they will not be able to be carved?

Mr. Gallacher: They are not so tough as the hon. and gallant Member.

Captain John Crowder: asked the Minister of Food if he will state the price

paid for the turkeys which he has recently bought in the U.S.A.

Dr. Summerskill: Negotiations for the purchase of some turkeys which were offered to my right hon. Friend are not yet completed.

Captain Crowder: Is the hon. Lady aware that a private importer told the Minister that these turkeys could be bought at about 33 cents per lb. f.o.b. New York last January; that the Minister did nothing; that the new price is between 37 and 38 cents per lb.; and could the Minister look into it, because bulk buying is becoming very expensive?

Dr. Summerskill: I have told the hon. and gallant Member that negotiations are going forward. I do not want to prejudice negotiations by mentioning prices in the House at this moment.

Mr. Scollan: Is the hon. Lady aware that the United States have just confiscated the largest turkey in Europe and Asia?

Subsidies

Sir W. Smithers: asked the Minister of Food what the price of butter, margarine and other fats would be without the present subsidy.

Dr. Summerskill: In the current financial year the retail price of butter without subsidy would have been 2s. 1d. per lb., and on 1946 costs, the retail prices of domestic margarine, cooking fat and lard without subsidy would have been, respectively, 9¾d., 10d. and 1s. 1½d.

Sir W. Smithers: Is it not a fact that the subsidy is made necessary, mainly owing to the money squandered in bulk purchases?

Dr. Summerskill: No, that is not a fact.

Sir W. Smithers: Of course it is.

Dr. Summerskill: These prices are in accordance with the stabilisation policy of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Vegetable Prices

Miss Colman: asked the Minister of Food whether, in view of the continuing high retail prices of vegetables, particularly cabbages, cauliflowers and turnips, he will re-impose price control.

Dr. Summerskill: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 24th March to the hon. Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould), a copy of which I am sending her.

Mr. Tolley: This is of very urgent national importance, and will not the Minister look into it and do something about it?

Dr. Summerskill: We fully realise the importance of this, but I would remind my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Minister gave a detailed reply on Monday.

Mr. A. Edward Davies: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware of the exorbitant prices which are being charged for essential vegetables such as parsnips, turnips, sprouts, cabbages and cauliflowers; and whether he will take immediate action to reduce prices and control these necessary foodstuffs.

Dr. Summerskill: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 24th March to the hon Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould), a copy of which I am sending him.

Mr. Davies: Does the Minister appreciate that, in spite of the reply of 24th March, we are still dissatisfied; that the prices of green vegetables are very unsatisfactory, and that turnips are being priced at 1s. 4d. each? What tonnage of green vegetables does she expect will come into the country before 15th June under the open licence system; and will this deal with the problem effectively?

Dr. Summerskill: I think my right hon. Friend indicated on Monday that he was giving this his closest attention.

Mr. Beeehman: Will the Minister bear in mind that the growers of early cauliflowers in this country have sustained tragic and phenomenal losses?

Unfit Beef Consignment

Mr. Awbery: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that a consignment of beef allocated to the Bristol butchers recently, was unfit to be included in the customers' rations and had to be withdrawn; and what steps he is taking to prevent a repetition of this distribution to retailers of unsuitable food.

Dr. Summerskill: The meat in question was issued for the ration owing to a mis-

take, which was put right as soon as possible. Steps have been taken to avoid any repetition of that mistake.

Mr. Awbery: Is the hon. Lady aware that 250 sacks of New Zealand beef were sent to Bristol; that one of the divisions in Bristol refused to accept that beef because it was not fit for human consumption; that the other four divisions accepted it under duress; and that the people of Bristol were compelled to eat beef which was unsuitable, because of the action of the Minister in this matter?

Dr. Summerskill: I have explained that this was a mistake. Everybody is liable to make a mistake, even my hon. Friend. Although the amount does seem large, I would remind my hon. Friend that it represented only 1 per cent. of the whole.

Eggs, Poultry, Cheese

Mr. Gammans: asked the Minister of Food the value of eggs, cheese and poultry purchased from Poland in 1946; and the approximate value of these products which it is expected can be purchased from Holland and Poland in the first six months of 1947.

Dr. Summerskill: Imports of eggs and poultry from Poland in 1946 were valued at £35,000 c.i.f. In the first half of 1947 imports of Polish poultry are expected to amount to about £41,000 from contracts made in 1946. Negotiations on 1947 purchases of eggs and poultry have only just begun. No cheese was bought from Poland in 1946, and I do not expect any to be available in 1947. As regards Holland, arrangements have been made for the purchase of eggs and cheese, but not for poultry. Shipments are, however, not expected until the second half of the year.

Mr. Gammans: Would the hon. Lady explain why a country like Poland, which is receiving help from U.N.R.R.A., can possibly export poultry and eggs, and how we can get substantial quantities of cheese from Holland, which only two years ago was liberated from the Germans?

Dr. Summerskill: It is not for me to make this explanation. It is for Poland. We invited Poland to send us any surplus food she has and she has offered these amounts, which we gratefully accept.

Mr. Gammans: But is not the answer, in the case of Holland, that the Dutch have been more successful in buying feedingstuffs and maize than we have?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Eden: May I ask the acting Leader of the House if he can tell us what the Government's intentions are about the Business today, in the light of the Motion that is on the Order Paper?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Arthur Greenwood): Yes, Sir. We desire to obtain today, as I have already announced, the Committee and remaining stages of the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill and of the Forestry Bill; and also the Lords Amendments to the Polish Resettlement Bill. It is proposed to move the Suspension of the Rule as a precautionary measure, but we hope that the Business can be obtained without asking the House to sit unduly late.
I should like to make a statement affecting Business tomorrow for the convenience of the House. The Dog Racecourse Betting Bill, which the House was good enough to pass through all its stages last Friday, may be amended in another place, and, if so, we expect to receive the Amendments today. They will be printed and made available to hon. Members tomorrow morning. I am informed that the Amendments will deal with a point which was raised on the Bill in this House, and which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary promised to consider. As there will be a Royal Commission during the evening, I hope that the House will agree to our considering the Lords Amendments as first Order tomorrow, before we enter upon the Second Reading of the Fire Services Bill.

Mr. Eden: While agreeing with what the right hon. Gentleman says about taking the Lords Amendments as first Order tomorrow, may I say—I am sure he will understand me—that we hope it will not be regarded as a precedent for taking Lords Amendments at such short notice.

Mr. Greenwood: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that But the House will realise that this Bill, if it is to be passed, must be passed urgently. We are in the hands of the House of Lords, and there is a Royal Commission tomorrow.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Arthur Green-wood.]

Orders of the Day — ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clauses 1 and 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 3.—(Payments for copies of proceedings of court-martial.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I understand that the purpose of Clause 3 is to increase to a person requiring a copy of court-martial proceedings the charge which will be levied against him. I think that the Committee will agree that the number of complaints that have been made about court-martial proceedings, and the occasions on which the House has thought it necessary to ask for inquiry to be held into court-martial proceedings may have this result, that it may be anticipated that more cases will arise in which requests for copies of proceedings will be made. I should have thought that it was highly undesirable at this time to increase the cost of obtaining copies of these proceedings. I should have thought that the Committee would be anxious to facilitate inquiry. We cannot facilitate inquiry by increasing the charge for the copies to the men who may want them. I understand that the reason given for this is that the costs of copying have increased. Even if they have, that would be no sufficient reason, in my view, for passing on the whole increase to the unfortunate soldier who requires a copy of the proceedings. Where a man has been the victim of court-martial proceedings, I am not at all sure a good case could not be made out for allowing him to have a copy of the proceedings without any charge at


all. I am not however arguing that at this moment, but only suggesting that the charge should not be increased.
One further point I should like to make is, that this Clause contains no maximum of any kind. Nor is any machinery provided to show how the cost is to be estimated, or to say who shall estimate it. The result is that the Army Council, presumably, will be able to fix for itself what the charge shall be; and, for all we know, fix it at a figure which would be prohibitive in the case of poor persons. It seems that this Clause ought not to be agreed to at all; but if it is agreed to, we ought to insert some maximum beyond which the Regulations shall not be allowed to go. Just as, in the former Act, there was a limit of 2d. per folio, so there ought here to be some limit per folio, and not merely a cost estimated by a party which may have an interest, if anybody has any, for preventing inquiry, without any check or control of any kind.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. John Freeman): This is a very good example in itself why it is not desirable to put a precise figure into the Bill. The provision of the Army Act, has stayed in its present form for something over 50 years, when the cost of copying these folios was, in fact, 2d. per folio. The cost has increased, and, in order to avoid making Amendments year by year, it appeared to us advisable not to lay down a fixed maximum figure. Of course, I give the categorical assurance to the Committee that there is no intention whatever on the part of the Army Council to exploit the situation, or to charge unreasonable prices for obtaining these copies. The charge, I am advised, on present costs will, in fact, be 4d. In any case, there are provisions—we are considering at the moment extending them—for providing legal aid in cases where there is financial hardship. I must invite the Committee to say that it is not unreasonable that we should make a charge of 4d. a folio for copying these proceedings. The costs, of course, are estimated by the firm, one of the recognised firms which actually undertake the copying of the proceedings. I hope my hon. Friend will not press the point.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I do not consider the Minister's reply at all satisfactory. He has told the Committee

that the provisions of this Bill have stood for about 50 years, and I understood him to say that, for the last 50 years, the charge has been prescribed at 2d. per folio, because that has been the estimated cost to the Government of making these copies of proceedings. If that is so, and if the costs have now risen to the extent of justifying an increase to 3d. or 4d., it does seem reasonable that this House should retain its control over the charge made to people who are entitled to receive copies of the proceedings. It does not seem to me to be good enough for the Minister to say that it is better to let the Army Council prescribe this charge in future. This Act is, after all, a matter which requires Parliamentary consideration every year by way of this annual Bill. If it is necesasry to make an increase now, let the increase be specified, justified to the House and provided for in the Bill.
It seems to me that this is another and quite unnecessary example of the Executive removing matters of varying importance from Parliamentary control but, whatever the degree of importance they may have, this is a matter in which the Committee is concerned to preserve the rights of the subject. I suggest that justice will be done and administrative convenience equally well served if the appropriate Amendments were made now by providing for a specific increase. Persons interested are entitled to know the cost at which they can obtain copies of court martial proceedings, just as, in civil matters, persons are entitled to obtain copies of the proceedings in a Court of Record, where the cost is prescribed in rules which are changed from time to time where necessary, and laid before the House. That has always been the practice in court martial proceedings. I hope the Minister will reconsider the matter, and that he will agree that, instead of this proposed alteration, there should be a modification of the existing provision and a maximum prescribed so that people may know the cost at which they can obtain these proceedings, and, at the same time, so that Parliament may exercise the same control which it has exercised for the last 50 years.

Mr. Stephen: I am not satisfied with the reply of the Minister. I think he might have given us a little more information with regard to the estimated saving. What was the loss on


this business last year which has impelled the Government to bring forward this new Clause? What estimated saving will there be to the community? If it is a material saving, we can understand why a change should be made, but I think the Committee is entitled to have some information. It is also a fact that it is of very great importance that people should be able to get legal documents without heavy expense, and, in the circumstances in which we are placed today, with the Army constituted, as it is, on a conscript basis, it is of the utmost importance that people should be able to obtain copies of court martial proceedings, even if it should mean a certain amount of loss to the State. I therefore, hope that the Government will give us some idea of the costs involved and the saving which it is estimated will be made by the acceptance of this alteration.
Further, I think the Financial Secretary was very weak in his argument on the question of why there should not be a maximum in the future. I could not follow his reasoning. He told us that the charge was actually going to be 4d., which is an increase of 100 per cent. If it is necessary that the charge should be 4d. per folio in future, why should it not be mentioned at that figure in this Bill? I am not at all satisfied, and I hope the Secretary of State will give us more information.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I also think the Committee would be right to ask for a little further information on this matter. There was not quite the usual degree of reluctance on the part of the hon. Gentleman to give any information at all. He did allow a little to come out. We are dealing today with a citizen Army, and it is much more important, from my point of view, in this question of court-martial proceedings that we should be absolutely certain that the soldier has the easiest possible access to the evidence given against him. We have been given the figure of 2d. per folio for a certain kind of report. That is the figure which the soldier has had to pay for these reports. I am not very well acquainted with these documents, and I do not know how long the reports may be, but I assume that they vary considerably in length. There is no reason why we should not be given some idea of their length.
My next point is that the Committee would be on sound lines in insisting on a figure being inserted in the Bill, even if it has to be changed from year to year, that would have the good effect of enabling the House of Commons to keep an eye on the Services, which is always a valuable thing, from the House of Commons point of view. What surprises me is the idea that 3d. or 4d. would be enough in future. Taking it as 4d., what surprises me is that, in the course of 50 years, the cost of these reports has only doubled. I should have thought that, taking into account the increased cost of labour, paper and printing, the cost would have been much higher, and it is for that reason that I say we should be well advised to lay down a definite figure. If we leave the matter vague and indefinite, a certain pressure may come from the Treasury, as a result of which the charge might go up to 6d., and we should know nothing about it. That is the way these charges do go up. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad to have that remark confirmed from the other side of the Committee.
For those reasons, I think it essential that a definite figure should be inserted. But there are also other reasons why it is advisable that on an occasion such as this—one of the very rare occasions on which we can make ourselves heard in any way on these matters—we should express our view. We are definitely up against the very curious fact that, for two generations, a definite figure has been inserted for this purpose. I am not sure that when a man in the Army is in difficulties, especially if he is abroad—I am not worrying so much about the soldier at home—he should not be given the report of the case free of charge. Might it not be possible, in those circumstances, to let him have the report without charge? Not only that, but could it not be made absolutely certain that he will be given the report? It seems to me that it should be part of his right at the trial, that the report will be given to him. Those are points on which we ought to have some further information before we leave this Clause.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Bellenger): I think that the Committee is pursuing the wrong point; certainly the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is. What he is trying to obtain, and, what I think my hon. Friend


the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and my hon. Friend the Member for East Islington (Mr. E. Fletcher) were also striving for—and I have great sympathy with their view—is that, at any rate in certain cases, the soldier should not be charged anything at all. But this Clause has nothing to do with that. There are properly recognised methods whereby the soldier can be helped, not only in this respect, in obtaining the official copy of the evidence given, but in a far wider range of legal assistance. Therefore, what hon. Members are asking for today will not be achieved by this Clause; it will be achieved in various other ways which we have at our disposal, not necessarily by Act of Parliament, but by Regulations which we issue in the War Office for the purpose of helping a soldier to defend himself. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) who is a member of the special committee set up to inquire into courts-martial would know this point better than I do, but it is possible that the point raised by the hon. Member for Torquay may be one of the things which that committee is considering, namely, the best possible way to give legal aid, including the subject matter of this Clause, to the soldier who has to defend himself at a court-martial. All that this Clause seeks to do is this. Incorporated in the Army Act of many years ago was a figure of 2d. per folio for the evidence, if it was required. Not every soldier wants that evidence, and, of course, this applies not only to the ordinary soldier, but to an officer as well. As my hon. Friends know, legal charges have increased—

Mr. S. Silverman: These are not legal charges.

Mr. Bellenger: These charges have also increased. The charge for copying evidence today has gone up from 2d. per folio and is now, I think my hon. Friend said, 4d. per folio. That is what I am advised.

Mr. McKie: The hon. Gentleman said that it had gone even higher than that.

Mr. Bellenger: If that is the case, it is an additional reason for having the Clause in this form so that, instead of having a fixed sum of 2d. per folio, which applied 50 years ago, we shall be given scope,

without coming to Parliament, to be able to say that the individual shall be charged the proper price for the evidence, and that the taxpayer shall not be asked to subsidise the cost, except in those cases where we think it necessary to help the soldier, both legally and by the various other provisions at our disposal. I hope that my hon. Friends will not press this point. It is purely a matter of revising a statute which was passed 50 years ago, and which, unfortunately, has not been revised in this respect since.

Mr. S. Silverman: It was passed last year.

Mr. Bellenger: Of course, my hon. Friend knows that the Army and Air Force (Annual) Bill is passed every year. It is usually passed without any Debate on Second Reading, but every year various Amendments are incorporated in it to bring it up to date. It may be that the Army Act itself may require considerable amendment in the future, but that, I suggest, is a matter upon which I ought to be advised, and the House agreed that I should be advised on it, when the Special Committee was set up to go into the whole matter of court-martial procedure, including any Amendments they might consider necessary to the Army Act.

Mr. Stephen: What about the saving?

Mr. Bellenger: It is not a question of saving; it is a question of charging the proper price. I do not know how many soldiers have asked for copies of evidence in the past year. I do not suppose that it would be a very large number, and, therefore, the saving would not be very large. But, if the hon. Member is suggesting that, because it is only a small amount, we need not worry about it. I would say that that can be achieved by an entirely different method.

Mr. Silverman: I apologise for troubling the Committee again, but I would say, with all respect, that my right hon. Friend ought to pay more careful attention to what is being said to him, and to what we are asking the Committee to do. He complains that hon. Members opposite and on this side of the Committee are pursuing a false point. But he himself has been basing his argument on a case which is not covered by this Clause, and which was not referred to in any of the speeches which have been made. This matter has


nothing to do with copies of evidence being made available to prisoners undergoing trial at courts-martial. My right hon. Friend should read Section 124 of the Army Act which entitles a person tried by court-martial to obtain a copy of the proceedings thereof upon payment of a prescribed sum. But that is not during the course of the proceedings; that entitles a man to have a copy of the proceedings at any time within seven years after the trial.

Mr. Bellenger: If my hon. Friend will allow me to interrupt him for a moment, I would like to ask the Committee for what purpose they think that a man would want a copy of such proceedings. Generally speaking, he would want it in order to submit a petition to the King, either to alter or to quash the sentence.

Mr. Silverman: That may well be his reason, but there is nothing in the Clause about his reason for wanting the evidence, and we are not entitled to assume what that reason might be. He is given an absolute right to obtain a copy of the proceedings for his own purpose, and the point I am making is that, when this matter is confused with the right of the prisoner to be informed of the evidence against him, that is confusing the issue, and raising a point with which we are not concerned at the moment. We are concerned with the point that a man shall be allowed to exercise his absolute right to obtain a copy of such proceedings on demand for seven years after the court-martial proceedings. There is a strong case, at the present moment, for giving such a man a copy free of charge, but I am not pressing that point now. I am saying that, except in such a case, the rate of payment ought to be prescribed in the Act. It is quite idle to say that we had better not fix a rate because it may stand for a long time, and that the present rate has stood of 50 years. My contention is that it has not. It has been expressly reviewed each year, and whatever figure we insert now will be reviewed this day 12 months.
It may be true, as my right hon. Friend said, that the House as a whole does not trouble itself very much on the Committee stage with the details of these Clauses, but that does not mean that they should not be considered. I have known the House kept up all night on this Bill, and I am not sure that those all-night sittings were not the most interesting and produc-

tive in the end. But whatever the House does my right hon. Friend has to come back here every year for his Army Act. That is one of the foundation stones of our Constitution. If he wants to make a change in the Measure at any time he has only to say so. He is asking for a change now. He could have asked for it last year or he could ask for it next year. He need not fear that any figure which is put in now will have to stand too long, because he can change it at intervals of 12 months as often as he likes.
4.0 p.m.
Why should we leave the cost to be estimated by an outside private firm? They make their own charges, Parliament takes no responsibility, my right hon. Friend takes no responsibility, the Army Council takes no responsibility. Whoever makes the copy makes his own estimate of the cost, and on the basis of that estimate the Army Council collects the money. I regard that as a most unsatisfactory way of assessing the cost in the case where a man is exercising his statutory right to obtain a copy. I thought when I spoke that the estimate was going to be made by the Law Officers' Department or by the Army Council or by some other authority amenable to Parliamentary criticism, but what the Financial Secretary said when he spoke made the thing worse than ever, because he said the charge was going to be estimated by whatever typing firm did the job. Do we say in the case of any other Government contractor that we will pay on the terms that whoever supplies the goods fixes his own price and the Treasury will pay without question?

Mr. Digby: It is bulk buying.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member has got it wrong. It is bulk buying for which I am pleading. This is to provide for a separate fee in every individual case, with the usual anarchic results, and that is what I want to see changed. I want to see the price fixed so that a man who says: "I do not think I was justly treated at that time; I was not able to do anything about it before, but I would like to have the matter reviewed now. I would like to have my name cleared of the stain, but before embarking on legal proceedings that may be beyond my reach or embarking on a whole series of activities that may not be well founded I should like to refresh my memory with a


copy of the proceedings in which I was involved and I am prepared to pay for it. "I should like a man in that position to know the fee he will have to pay. This House should prescribe what is to be the maximum fee. That is what we have always done, and why should we not do it in this case?

Major Legge-Bourke: It is not often that I find myself agreeing with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but in this case I should like to support what he said, except in one detail of his closing remarks. At present we do not quite know whether it is possible for a soldier to appeal against a sentence which he has been given. At the present moment there is no machinery, as far as I know, for appeals to be made for rectification in later years, but doubtless after the Committee has reported that may be provided for. There are one or two points to which I would like to draw attention. One of the difficulties which has been mentioned today could have been overcome if, instead of using the word "estimated" in line 24, we had used the word "calculated." It seems to me that would have met most of the complaints. As far as I understand it, though I am no lawyer, an estimate can be broadly interpreted as a rough guess, whereas calculated would mean a worked-out charge. My second point is that I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would have been in a position to make some distinction between those who are found guilty and those who are found not guilty, and that certainly so far as the first copy was concerned a concession might have been given.

Mr. Digby: I too am rather surprised that there is no distinction here between those who are found guilty and those who are acquitted. The Minister has rather assumed that this is concerned only with those who are found guilty, but there may be cases in which those who have been acquitted will wish to have some evidence of what took place at the court—martial in order to clear their characters, perhaps at some future date, and it seems absolutely unjustifiable that this Clause should lay down that they are to pay for their copies despite the fact that the actual charge which was brought against them does not turn out to have been well founded. A second point on which I

should like to comment briefly is the assumption of the Secretary of State that the evidence will be taken down by some outside firm. I cannot understand why he assumes that the evidence will never be taken down under unit arrangements, in which case the actual cost would be absolutely nothing. It would be necessary to make only one extra carbon copy, but under this Clause a charge will have to be made, although the cost to the State will have been nothing more at all. Why does he assume that it will be necessary to bring in outside typists to take evidence at what may be a very short court-martial?

Mr. McKie: I am bound to say that I think the right hon. Gentleman showed himself, and I hope I am not saying this offensively, uninformed about this Bill, which is, after all, an annual Bill which Parliament is required to pass every year. I would remind hon. Members that this has been going on for many years and it was regularly commended by no less a distinguished predecessor of his than Mr. Cardwell. From all sides of the Committee the right hon. Gentleman has been pressed regarding the range of the cost of copies of the proceedings at these courts-martial because it is a matter which affects every hon. Member in the House from a constituency point of view. Therefore, I think the right hon. Gentleman may have something further to say and may wish to put forward some further justification, because he has so far shown very little justification for incorporating this Clause in the Bill. Apart from court-martial proceedings, every member of the public is now very much more interested in the proceedings of this House or of any court of inquiry than has ever been the case before. For instance, everybody knows that the public are reading HANSARD in a way they have never done before.
Our constituents constantly ask us to send them copies of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Proceedings of this House of Commons. Now the right hon. Gentleman asks us to pass this Clause which proposes to raise the price stated there, and even the increased figure which has been mentioned may not prove to be adequate, because the cost may easily rise to any figure having regard to the inflationary tendencies of His Majesty's present advisers. That is all the more


reason why the right hon. Gentleman should have something very much more definite to say on this matter. Of course I understand that he is rather bewildered at the present time, having regard to the economic chaos in which we find ourselves involved, and that it is difficult for him to arrive at a precise figure, but I think we should have something more definite. He has told us that we must just wait and see, but that will not satisfy us, nor will it satisfy the people who may well be sufferers from the proceedings of a court-martial. Our constituents often have some direct or indirect interest in the proceedings of a court-martial and they will demand, as indeed they have a right to demand, that a report of the proceedings shall be made available to them at the cheapest possible cost. The right hon. Gentleman will probably tell us that he has already said that he is not able to fix a definite figure, and that we must wait and see, but I repeat that that does not satisfy us, and therefore I hope that, if not able to give us a precise figure, he will give a clearer indication of what will have to be paid in the future.

Earl Winterton: I listened in respectful silence to the attack, carried out with such distinction as we expect from him, by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) against the Government. He made a very interesting point. I want to ask one question only on this Clause. It is a point which has already been raised by the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), who asked why the word "estimated" appears in line 24. Surely the correct word should be, not "calculated" as my hon. and gallant Friend suggested, but rather "actual." I put this forward as a friendly suggestion, and in order to give the Committee an opportunity of considering it and, if necessary, dividing upon it—when I am sure I shall have the very distinguished support of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne and his very enthusiastic supporters around him, who cheered him with such vigour during his speech. I would ask leave to move as an Amendment to leave out "estimated" and to insert "actual."

The Chairman: I cannot accept that Amendment. I would remind the noble Lord that I have already proposed the

Question that the Clause stand part of the Bill.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. C. Williams: When the right hon. Gentleman was addressing the Committee just now he called attention once or twice to the speech which I had made. I really think that I did understand very fully the remarks at the opening of this Debate by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). I seem to remember a time when the right hon. Gentleman himself used to make powerful speeches on the rights of private soldiers, and I see no reason why every ordinary Private Member like myself should not put his point of view when he thinks there is a Grievance to be remedied. We have heard a very interesting suggestion which would, I think, relieve the minds of some of us if the Secretary of State followed it. I will not now deal with the fact that the fixing of any figure is difficult or the fact that we should be able to go into these matters every year, which I believe would be the right course. Since an Amendment cannot be moved now, I suggest that, as it is obvious that the word to which many of us object is "estimated," it would not be impossible—if the Government wished to meet us on this point, as I am sure the Secretary of States does—for them to put down on the Report stage an Amendment to insert "calculated" instead of "estimated." This would simplify matters, and would give us the feeling that the Government were trying to meet the point. The object of a Report stage is that when a good suggestion has been made at an earlier stage of the Bill, an Amendment can be moved. The Government would help us if they would accept my suggestion and the proposal which originated from the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Digby) and was supported by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton).

Mr. Bellenger: Perhaps I can give the Committee some satisfaction. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton) are concerned that there shall be no exorbitant charge made, but that it shall be the actual charge, and the noble Lord endeavoured to move an Amendment to that effect. I am advised that the actual charge at present is 4d. a folio. Hon. Members will not imagine that people


doing this work charge anything they like; I can assure them that the Treasury keep a very careful eye on what they pay for anything, and there is, therefore, a very close guard on charges of this description. I think the feeling of the Committee is that a maximum figure should be inserted and that that maximum figure should be the figure in relation to what it costs the taxpayer. We are responsible for seeing that the taxpayer is not mulcted unnecessarily. I will take an opportunity at a later stage—I do not know whether there will be a Report stage on the Bill that will enable me to put down an Amendment—to ensure, in whatever is the appropriate way, that 4d. a folio shall be inserted. I will take steps to do that later.

Mr. Bowles: I suppose there will not be a Report stage unless an Amendment has been made in Committee, and, therefore, my right hon. Friend might find some difficulty in moving an Amendment on Report. He covered himself by referring to a later stage. Would not the best way be for the Committee to refuse to allow this Clause to stand part of the Bill, and then, on the Report stage, the Secretary of State could move the necessary Amendment.

Earl Winterton: With the permission of hon. Gentlemen opposite, who greeted me with derisive cheers on the last occasion on which I rose to speak—if I may address the Chair with their permission—I would say that we on this side of the Committee are grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his suggestion, but the point that has been made by the hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) is of some importance, and I would respectfully ask for your Ruling, Major Milner, on how we can deal with the matter.

Mr. S. Silverman: Before you give a Ruling, Major Milner, may I point out that the effect of taking out Clause 3 would be to leave a hole in the Measure which would mean that the whole entitlement to get a copy of the proceedings might be withdrawn?

Mr. Bowles: My suggestion was that the Clause should be reinstated on Report by the Minister and the House in an altered form. I did not suggest that there should not be any Clause 3.

Mr. S. Silverman: I would have no objection to its being done in that way. I wish to thank my right hon. Friend for meeting the point in substance. I am not greatly interested in how we amend the Clause, as long as it is amended.

Mr. C. Williams: On a point of Order, Major Milner. How could this be done unless the Clause were amended? The Secretary of State showed every sort of good will in regard to the proposal, but would it not be the better course to negative the Clause and to reinsert it in an altered form later?

The Chairman: If there were Amendments—I do not know whether there will be or not—there would be a Report stage, but if there is not a Report stage, the right hon. Gentleman has said that he will cause an Amendment to be moved in another place. That would be a simple way of dealing with the matter, and it would be much better than negativing the Clause. I understand the right hon. Gentleman is willing that that course should be adopted.

Mr. Bellenger: That was what I had in mind. I do not want to forestall any Debate that may take place on the two Amendments that are to be moved, but I had hoped there would not be a Report stage, and my intention would be to deal with the matter in the appropriate and easiest way, which would be in another place.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 4.—(Liability of officer to maintain wife and children.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. S. Silverman: This Clause is intended to meet a point which I raised in the last Parliament about the difference in the machinery for enforcing maintenance orders in the case of officers and in the case of men. It used to be the case that where orders were obtained in the courts, the orders were satisfied by the Army authorities out of the man's pay, whereas in the case of officers, no matter how unworthy an officer's behaviour, no matter how he neglected his domestic obligations, and no matter how completely


those facts were established to the satisfaction of a civil court and an order made, there were no means left of making an officer pay if he was unwilling to do so. That was wrong, and it ought to have been amended long ago. [Interruption.] If he was overseas, he could not be got at, but even if he was not overseas, it was very difficult. Certainly, the order could not be enforced against his pay as it could be in the case of a private soldier. I know of some cases where the man escaped completely the performance of a quite undoubted and undisputed obligation. This Clause attempts to put that right, but I am not quite satisfied either with what it does or the way in which it does it. I can make the point clearer by referring to the Memorandum to the Bill rather than to the Clause. The Clause is rather technically drafted, and the point appears more clearly in the Memorandum. Paragraph (a) of the Memorandum to this Clause says:
The officer will be liable to maintain his wife and children (including illegitimate children) to the same extent as if he were a civilian,
There then follow certain exceptions. Paragraph (d) states:
Where arrears due under a maintenance or affiliation order have accumulated while the defendant was serving as an officer of the regular forces, he may not after the end of his service be committed to prison for nonpayment of the arrears unless the court is satisfied that he has the means to pay or has had the means to do so since the end of his service, and has failed to do so.
Unless I am mistaken, there is a conflict between those two paragraphs, because the law as it would apply to a civilian—and paragraph (a) says that the officer shall be liable to the same extent as if he were a civilian—is that if an order is made against a civilian with regard to the maintenance of his wife and children, legitimate or illegitimate, and he does not comply with that order, he may as for contempt of court be committed to prison if it is shown that he had, at the time when the money was due, the means to pay it, and failed to do so. The law goes considerably beyond that, because one does not have to show any such thing; all one has to show is that the man did not, in fact, pay, and the court may send him to prison for not having paid, whether he had means or not; but I think the modern practice, whatever may be the strict letter of the law, would be that the court would be reluctant to send a man

to prison except for wilful refusal to comply with the order of the court, and neglect to comply with an order of the court would not be wilful unless a man could have complied with it, and did not do so. That is all that it is necessary to prove in the case of a civilian—not merely that he has the money now, not merely that he did have it within some limited time, but that he had it at some time when the money was due, that he could within his means have observed the order, but did not do so. He may be then committed for contempt in default of payment.
But paragraph (d) is quite different. I have omitted paragraphs (b) and (c), but, in short, they provide something to which I do not object in the least; they say that while a man is actually serving, particularly if he is overseas, he ought not to be harassed and worried and the Services perhaps deprived arbitrarily of his services by interference from a civil court. Therefore, during the period of his service he cannot be got at. I make no complaint about that, because it is a necessary exception, but I think that if after he has left the Service it is established by evidence that his failure to comply with the order and to maintain his dependants was wilful, in that he had sufficient means to do it, but did not do it, he ought to be called upon at the end of his service to account for that wilful refusal. The Clause as it is now drawn exempts him from that.
If he is demobilised, then in spite of the fact that he had for years, while in receipt of good pay and allowances, wilfully neglected his domestic responsibilities, he would still be protected, although his service was ended. The order could not be enforced by imprisonment because of the fact that he had means during the period of his service. [Interruption.] If my hon. Friends will read further, they will see that it is only a difference of machinery and not of substance. If they will read paragraphs (b) and (c) they will find that the wife cannot herself go with the order to the Paymaster-General and say, "Satisfy this"; nevertheless, in spite of that, the deductions from his pay to satisfy these demands may still be made. What is intended by the Clause is not to be greatly criticised, but the point I am now on is one of substance and principle, that it gives to an officer quite unnecessary protection, such as he ought not to have.


The officer ought not to be in any better position than a civilian would be in the same circumstances, except that the officer's military duties have to be correctly performed. When that condition is satisfied, the officer ought to be subject to the same duties as any other citizen in analogous circumstances.

4.30 p.m.

The Chairman: It may be a convenience if I point out that the matter under discussion is clearly dealt with under Subsection (4). This may avoid the possibility of confusion arising from references to the Memorandum.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: The Clause refers to an officer who is a "putative father." The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has claimed to be the father of this Clause. I want to substantiate my own claim in that respect. The hon. Member appears to be unaware that when the Bill came up for discussion last year there was a Clause in my name on the Order Paper to the same effect. I withdrew the Clause from the Order Paper on the undertaking from the Government that they would put down a similar Clause.

Mr. S. Silverman: I should be extremely sorry to limit the hon. Member's claim in this matter, but I would like to inform him that in the previous Parliament I put down an Amendment to precisely the same effect, and that I also withdrew it, as he did, on the assurance given by the then Secretary of State for War that something on similar lines would some day be included in the Bill. Perhaps we may agree jointly to share the paternity of the Clause and to see that it is now properly looked after.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The only conclusion that I can come to now is that the hon. Member's efforts at paternity appear to have been less effective than mine. The Clause which I proposed was relatively short. Now that my offspring appears in the light of day, I am surprised to find that it is not one but triplets, or even quintuplets. The Government have, broadly speaking, carried out the intention which I had hoped to carry into effect.
There are a number of points to which I would now like to call attention, with

the object of obtaining information. I appreciate that Subsection (2) follows closely the wording of the provision which covers the other ranks in the Army. It nevertheless seems that the wording may be defective. The phrase:
when any order or decree is made under any Act
should, by any ordinary construction, govern the whole Subsection. By such a construction, paragraph (b) would be covered by those governing words, and it would become effective only if an order had been made. I am satisfied that that is the intention of the Department and that that is the more natural construction to put upon the words. As it stands, the paragraph means that the jurisdiction of the Army Council to order maintenance would become effective not only after an order had been made, but after such an order has been sent, as contemplated in the earlier part of the Clause. I am sure of the intention of the Government, but I suggest that they should look at the wording again and amend it, if need be, at a later stage in the consideration of the Bill.
The next question is whether the Clause as it stands covers the case of the divorced wife. I have very little doubt that it is intended to cover that case. A number of officers have obligations to divorced wives. Payments to divorced wives are just as great as to those who have been deserted without divorce. I should like an assurance that the wording of the Clause is wide enough to cover such cases, even where there are no children. My next question concerns the use of the word "shall" in line 11. It will be seen that the wording is that such an order or decree "shall be sent to the Army Council." I am a little surprised at the Secretary of State for War using such an expression. When I was in the Army one of the first things I was taught was never to put orders in the passive voice but always to indicate clearly who was to carry out the order. The right hon. Gentleman has not indicated who is to carry out the instruction. Is this wording intended to put an obligation upon the bench of magistrates? Clearly it cannot be intended to put an obligation upon the wife. Who is it intended shall carry out this instruction? There should be an indication in the Subsection who is to undertake that obligation.
My next point is that the second part of Subsection (2) provides that the Army Council may order a portion of an officer's pay to be appropriated and paid towards the maintenance of the wife and children of the officer, in the circumstances mentioned. The maximum portion which is permitted under the paragraph is three-sevenths of the officer's pay. I am not quarrelling with the general principle of the three-sevenths maximum, but there is a noticeable absence of any words covering the payment of Income Tax. I would like to know how it is contemplated that the Income Tax law empowering trustees and others to make payments of this kind is to operate in respect of payments made under the Clause. Will payments be made gross or net to the dependants? Will there be varying circumstances? If so, how is the calculation to be made? This is a matter of considerable interest to dependants. It means that if they are to get the payments net after the deduction of Income Tax at the standard rate of 9s. in the £, many dependants will be left virtually destitute until they can get a lump sum repayment at the end of the year. We ought to have some further explanation of this matter from the Government. Another question arising on the same point is whether the amount to be left in the pocket of the officer is to be gross or net. Is it intended that he shall have four-sevenths of his pay gross before any deduction is made for Income Tax? Or is it to be net, that is to say after the deduction of the tax which he would have to pay in any circumstances?
Next I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question about allowances in a case such as I will outline. During the war, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, when a soldier was subjected to compulsory stoppage of pay in a case of this kind, he was eligible for an allowance equivalent to his family allowance. In order to meet his obligations to his divorced or separated wife, he was able to claim an amount equal to the amount which he would have had as family allowance if he were married in the ordinary way. That amount was given pro tanto, to satisfy his obligation to his dependants. Is it intended that the officer's married allowance shall be available to him pro tanto to satisfy the amount of the obligation placed on him by the Clause?
A further point which I wish to put to the right hon. Gentleman arises under

Subsection (3). An officer who is liable to proceedings by his wife, or by a woman who has had a child, is protected from being sued if the officer's commanding officer certifies that the officer is under orders to proceed overseas. In the case of a wife, that is not a matter of great importance. She has her alternative remedy, if I am right in assuming that the opening words of Subsection (2) govern the whole of that Subsection. Even if she has not obtained an order from the court she can go to the Army Council direct, and get an order for maintenance, whereupon she will be in the same position as though she had gone to the court. When the officer comes out of the Army, in due course he will be back in this country in the ordinary way, and will be liable in the courts in the ordinary way.
I am concerned about the case of the officer who has an illegitimate child. If the woman by whom he had the child is to be prevented from taking appropriate action, other than by the machinery of Subsection (3), the probability is that there will be delay of two or three years before she can do anything about the matter at all. There will be very great hardship in such a case, because she will have to maintain the illegitimate child for two or three years without any means of redress against the father. In the second place, there may be much greater hardship. In affiliation proceedings, availability of evidence is of vital importance. After a delay of two or three years, people who had direct knowledge of the facts sometimes cannot be traced. Not only may the woman in that case lose two or three years' maintenance but she may be completely defeated in obtaining any redress against a clearly responsible father. I should be grateful if, when he replies to the Debate, the right hon. Gentleman would answer this question, and the other questions which I have asked.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: I first want to congratulate the Secretary of State for War on trying to tackle this problem, although I do not think he has solved it. Successive Conservative Governments for the last 50 years have not at all tackled the problem that an officer is able to get away with


disgraceful conduct, when a soldier is unable to do so. My right hon. Friend deserves credit for trying to deal with it. Before going into the merits may I say it seems to me intolerable that the matter should be spread out over Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill in a manner which makes it impossible for any of us to understand what it is all about. It seems to me that the Parliamentary draftsman in this case is trying to get away with far too much. I confess that although I have been engaged in a department of the War Office which had to construe this provision, as was the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), neither of us seems to be very clear what it all means.
It seems to me that my right hon. Friend ought to consider why there should be any difference between the position of an officer and a private soldier. If a private soldier has an order made against him under Section 137 of the Army Act, why should not an officer have an order made against him under the same Section? I believe that great injustice is continuing to be worked under this legislation for this reason. I think the worst and most prominent case is where the wife of a private soldier or an officer is deserted by a man, who goes overseas, say, to Palestine or India. He then ceases to contribute to her maintenance and he has an absolute right to refuse on the ground that he has no intention of cohabitating with her again. That brings the allowance to an end. There is no method at all to deal with that case. It is quite true that the welfare officer is asked to see the man and discuss the matter with him, but if he says to his commanding officer, "I have no intention of resuming cohabitation," then all allowances to the wife cease forthwith. If that happens in the case of a soldier, the papers are sent to a branch, I think A.G.3, of the War Office and that branch considers straight away whether that soldier is justified in depriving his wife of her maintenance or not. Under Section 137 the War Office has a discretion to order the compulsory stoppage of pay against the soldier, if it considers that a grave injustice is being done.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: It is not Section 137 but Section 145.

Mr. Blackburn: I am grateful to the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth). My memory about the

figures is wrong, but the point is that A.G.3 has still the power to grant a compulsory stoppage of pay but it has no power at all to grant a compulsory stoppage of pay in the case of an officer. Why should an officer not be in the same position as a private soldier? May I go a little further and say that it appears that under this Clause of the Bill there is going to be a power to grant compulsory stoppage, where there is already maintenance or some kind of order by a court. That is under Subsection 2 (b). That surely does not apply to these very complicated cases, where an officer goes overseas to serve in India or Palestine. It is then impossible for the wife to get any order against him at all. If he is serving on the North-West Frontier or in Palestine or in the desert there is no method by which the wife can get an order against him, and, therefore, she has no redress at all. What an extraordinary doctrine it is that while we are going to compel a private soldier to be honourable, we are not prepared to compel an officer to be honourable. That has been the case under successive Conservative Governments for generations, and I think it is time it was changed.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Member is very inaccurate. If he wants to say that this has been going on for many years he should say it has been going on under Conservative, Labour and Liberal Governments. He talks of 50 years of Conservative rule. If that had been the case, the country would not be in the state in which it is today.

Mr. Blackburn: I think the noble Lord is right up to a point, but I do not raise this matter in any frivolous way. I believe this illustrates a defect in the party opposite. A good Tory is one who can find a plausible excuse for doing nothing, and a bad Tory is the Tory who just says "No." I think that has always been the history of the party opposite.
I hope my right hon. Friend the Minister will recognise that this is a matter which requires immediate attention. I know that there are many cases of wives of officers who have not got any redress al all. I understand my hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Shurmer) has such a case and I think that the whole Clause should be reconsidered so that we may get it sensibly drafted. In the meantime it could be made to read so that an


officer will be in all respects on the same footing as a private soldier.

General Sir George Jeffreys: I fully concur with the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) when he says that it is high time that a provision to this effect should be inserted in the Army Act, because I know and I am certain other hon. Members also know of specific cases in which officers have very much neglected their domestic responsibilities. With reference to his remarks on the difference between officers and private soldiers in these matters, I should like to say that I know of cases where other ranks have been promoted to commissions, who while in the ranks had orders made against them. On being promoted, they promptly caused those orders to lapse. In other words they repudiated those orders.

Mr. Shurmer: This is all the more reason for this change.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I am in agreement with the hon. Member and that is the argument I am proposing to develop. I personally can see no reason for the difference between officers and other ranks in this respect at the present day or at any other time. I suggest that one reason for that state of affairs is simply that there is, unfortunately, a very different standard in these days as regards domestic responsibilities and marital fidelity compared with what there was 50 years ago. I was a young officer in the Army in those days and I do not hesitate to say that one practically never heard of such cases at all. It is very different today and if I were going to develop the argument, I would say that it was partly due to the fact that the class of officer now in the Army is different from what it was in those days. There is every reason for this Clause at the present time. Whether it could be improved in wording I will not say, but I hope the Committee will pass it, because it is overdue.

Major Bruce: Clauses 4, 5 and 6 of this Bill seem to do the same thing as another Bill which is before this House and which relates to the Navy—the Naval Forces (Enforcement of Maintenance Liabilities) Bill, and I was a little struck following the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) that

the Army had not caught up with the Navy in this business. In the Naval Forces (Enforcement of Maintenance Liabilities) Bill there power is taken in Clause 1 whereby deductions can be effected from the pay of an officer for the purpose of maintaining his wife, his child or children or even the maintenance of an illegitimate child. I might add that the Committee stage of this Bill has yet to be taken by this House. I am extremely surprised to learn that the Bill before the Committee this afternoon does not contain a similar provision, and I suggest that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War should live up to the standard set in the Navy by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty. Clause 4 of this Bill does not live up to the same high standard as that which has been decided upon by the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty.
After representations by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) and myself on the Second Reading, the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty was good enough to put down an Amendment to the Naval Forces (Enforcement of Maintenance Liabilities) Bill which gives certain safeguards to an officer or rating against whom an order has been made, and it provides that no deduction from pay shall be made under a particular provision of the Bill, unless the authority is satisfied
that the person against whom the order or decree was made has had a reasonable opportunity of appearing himself or has appeared by duly authorised legal representative to defend the case before the court by which the order or decree was made.
I consider that this would be an admirable Amendment to incorporate in this Bill as affecting an Order so that a person who has some liability under a court order shall also have available to him some reasonable method of protection.
I pass to another aspect of Clause 4 which also impinges on Clauses 5 and 6. I am sorry that the noble Lord the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winter-ton) is not here, because I would ask for his support on the point I want to raise. There is one important matter not covered by these Clauses. There are cases where a regular soldier or a regular officer is discharged abroad after he has completed so many years' service, and he is entitled


to be paid retired pay or pension abroad if he desires to remain in the country where he has been demobilised. In some cases—and they are very few indeed—the officers or the rankers as the case may be, desert their wives and children at home. At the present time unless there is a reciprocal arrangement between the countries involved, there is no possibility of the wife at home obtaining any kind of redress against her husband for her-self or the children, neither is there any possibility of any kind of redress being obtained for any illegitimate child who is left behind. I should have thought it possible for some provision to be made—and on another occasion I shall seek to do it in regard to the Naval Forces (Enforcement of Maintenance Liabilities) Bill—whereby deductions could be made for the purpose from the retired pay or pension of an officer or ranker living abroad, on behalf of his wife whom he has deserted.
Otherwise a most extraordinary situation arises. There is the wife at home here in England, say, with two children. Her husband, after having served so many years in the Forces, is demobilised abroad, and if he has completed seven years' service, he is entitled to draw from the British Treasury a pension for the remainder of his days. The pension presumably comes out of the Consolidated Fund to which the wife contributes in part, but if she wants to be maintained she is forced to go on public relief. I should have thought that there would have been some means whereby this particular situation could have been rectified, and I would suggest that the most suitable method would be by the insertion of a suitable Amendment later on—possibly in another place since the right hon. Gentleman has already indicated his intention to effect certain Amendments when the Bill goes through its later stages. I feel that it is entirely unjust and unreasonable that officers and rankers who have deserted their wives should be able to draw money and should be on a different basis from the ordinary civilian—

5.0 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggesting that recipients of Service pensions should be placed on a worse basis than recipients of wages or other incomes?

Major Bruce: It would, of course, have to be subject to one most important proviso. Obviously, anybody who had completed his service and had resided in this country afterwards would be subject to the normal process of the law in this country and would be in the same position as any other civilian. The particular point I have in mind concerns that very limited class of persons who shake the dust of Britain off their feet and go into another country permanently and continue to draw money from the Treasury, into which the wife has to pay in this country, and from which, presumably, she draws some kind of allowance under a provision made for her emergency maintenance. That is the case with which I am concerned, and I think the Minister should consider doing something about it because it does effect considerable injustice and is not in the best interests of the Service concerned.

Mr. C. Williams: I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) will excuse me if I do not go into the full details of his speech, but I am not feeling quite as strongly as are he and other Government supporters that this is an excellent opportunity to have a kick at a not very strong Service Minister.

Mr. S. Silverman: I hope the hon. Gentleman is not attributing that motive to me. My object was not to criticise my right hon. Friend, for whom I have a very great respect. I have served with him in this House for many years and I should be very sorry indeed to have my point of constructive criticism of this Clause so misinterpreted.

Mr. Williams: I have no wish to offend hon. Members opposite, but I rather understood from the tone of the speeches that they thought that this was an occasion on which they might ginger up someone in order to encourage him to do the right thing.

Mr. Silverman: I thought it was an occasion to take the opportunity—when a Labour Government are endeavouring to put right what other Governments have failed to put right—to make sure that their purpose is fully achieved.

Mr. Williams: That is exactly what I was trying to say in shorter and clearer words. An advance is being made which


is not quick enough for some hon. Members, but let me leave it at that. May I be allowed to congratulate Members on giving the Committee at least one piece of information, which was that the Navy was superior to that of the Army in this matter? Of course, the Navy has always led the Army, and it always will, but it is a very good thing that we should know.

Sir G. Jeffreys: You have made a very sweeping statement—

The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I must ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman to address the Chair.

Sir G. Jeffreys: I apologise, Mr Beaumont. I think that if my hon. Friend makes these statements the least he can do is to produce some evidence in support of them, although I suggest that they are hardly relevant to this discussion at all.

Mr. Williams: I made no reflection on anyone, but simply referred to the higher standard of one as compared with the other. Everyone knows that the British soldier has the highest standard of intelligence of any in the world, and that of the British Navy is even higher. I hope the Air people will not ask me about themselves because I should be quite prepared to say what I thought about them.
My reason for rising was to ask two questions about the Clause, but before doing so I should like to make it clear that I am not one of those who is worried about its parentage. At the bottom of page 3 it is stated that
execution in respect of any such liability or of any order or decree in respect of such maintenance shall not issue against his person, pay, arms, ammunition, equipments, instruments or clothing.
I do not know if there are any cavalrymen present, but although it would not often happen, if at all, I should like to know whether that would apply to the soldier's horse if he happened to have one. I think this may have been left out, and it is just as well that we should he careful in these matters. The other point about which I am not clear is this. It is laid down twice on page 4—in lines 5 and 35—that the orders or decrees made include those made in Northern Ireland. I am not a lawyer, but that is how I understand it. Incidentally, I notice that there is a very able lawyer

sitting behind the Government Bench. Have the Government of Northern Ireland been consulted on this matter if it applies there? I notice that it also applies to the Tynwald, which I understand is in the Isle of Man, but that although earlier in the Bill the Channel Islands were included they are not mentioned here. I am not sure about this and I should like a definite answer from the Minister as to whether consultations have taken place in these matters, and whether there has not been a drafting error.
There is one further question, which may be rather more complicated. Is there any co-ordination on this matter so far as concerns the Services of this country and the Dominions, since they so often have to serve together? Have there been any consultations and are Army Orders being regulated between the Dominions, ourselves and the Indian Army? That is a matter which I think we are entitled to ask about. I will not develop it, but I should like to have replies to my three questions. I am not trying to be hostile, although I could if I wished. I believe this is a good Clause and that at any rate the best part of it could only have come from my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee.

Mr. Bellenger: I am much obliged to hon. Members in all parts of the Committee for the various speeches which have been made, and also the attempts from different quarters of the Committee to claim paternity for this Clause and the two which succeed it and are consequential upon it. Being a modest sort of person, I do not want to claim any credit for it, although I could tell the Committee a good deal of what went on behind the scenes during the war when these things were argued out and resisted by Members of the then Government or, perhaps, by particular Services. Nevertheless, better late than never, and we have attempted in this Clause to put the officer in exactly the same position as the soldier. That is the purpose of this Clause, and although I listened to the various points put by hon. Gentlemen—which I intend to answer in a moment or so—it is our intention to put the officer in the same position as the soldier. That will account for some of the limitations which have been mentioned by hon. Gentlemen as applying now to the officer and which apply also to the soldier.

Mr. Shurmer: Did my right hon. Friend say, "On the same footing as the soldier?"

Mr. Bellenger: Perhaps I should have said "other ranks"—that in the case of warrant officers down to private soldiers there is no difference except in the amount of contribution they have to make from their pay in money to their spouses or in relation to their children. Hitherto, the Army Act has applied only to the soldier. That term must have meant "other ranks." For some reason an officer is described in other terminology.

Mr. S. Silverman: Perhaps he has never been regarded as a soldier?

Mr. Bellenger: The hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and the hon. Member for North Hendon (Mrs. Ayrton Gould) have all taken an active part when previous Army Bills have been before the House in an endeavour to put right a wrong which has existed too long. Today, I hope that we are about to pass on its stages to law something which I think the Committee, the public, and indeed the Services themselves, will admit to be something which ought to have been remedied some time ago. If I may I should like to deal with some of the very interesting points put by the hon. Member for South Hendon. He raised some very intricate matters, but I will do my best to reply. He called attention to the word "shall "in line 11 on page 4 and asked who was to notify the Army Council that an Order had been made. It is my intention to arrange with the Home Secretary, in those cases where an order is on the application of the wife, that the order shall be notified to the Army Council by the clerk of the court. I think the hon. Member was wondering how the Army Council would know the order had been made. The wife, of course, would let us know, or the Army Council, that an order had been made, because she could not go to the courts unless she wanted to get a maintenance order.

5.15 p.m.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: In the ordinary way, a wife ultimately finds her way to the Paymaster and thence to the Army Council, but there are cases in which the wife has no knowledge of the Army Act, and is unaware of the remedies under that

Act. I know of cases where no relief under the existing legislation is claimed for a long time. If I understood the right hon. Gentleman aright, he intends to put some obligation on the courts to forward an order after it is made, in the event of a man being a serving soldier or officer. That seems to be an interesting and useful development, but I do not think the wording carries out that intention. I should like to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman intends to put a definite obligation on the courts, or whether he intends to deal with it as a matter of administration.

Mr. Bellenger: What we are trying to do is to put the officer in the same position as the soldier. Therefore, notification of the order to the Army Council follows the same practice as in the case of other ranks. The initiative will, of course, have to be taken by the wife. The hon. Member said that the wife did not know the Army Act and Military Law. That is true, but many wives do not even know the civil law. One assumes that a wife will know that her husband is serving as an officer, and she will have to give evidence to that effect.

Mr. S. Silverman: The case does not arise where the wife does not go to the court. This case arises where an order has been made. The real difficulty arises from the passive or negative way in which the application is dealt with. Would it not be better if the Clause read, in line 11, that
the Registrar or clerk of the court out of which the order was issued shall cause a copy to be sent of the order to the Army Council"?
There would then be no doubt about it.

Mr. Bellenger: I ought to explain that the clerk of the court, if he knows the husband is serving in the Army, automatically sends it.

Mr. Silverman: The Clause does not provide that he shall.

Mr. Bellenger: This has been going on for some time past in the case of soldiers, and there has been no difficulty. Where an order has been made, the clerk automatically sends it on, if he knows the husband is serving in the Army. I will look at the point to see whether the word "shall" is sufficiently strong to make it incumbent on the clerk to send the order to us.

Mr. Silverman: Surely the order cannot be made by any court unless the parties have been served with the proceedings upon which the order is issued? In almost all cases the court, when making the order, will know therefore that the defendant is in the Forces. They will also know the man's pay. The difficulty would be met completely if a positive duty was placed upon the officers of the court to send a copy to the Army Council.

Mr. Bellenger: That is precisely the procedure which is observed. In those cases where an order of the court is made, there is no difficulty.
I am coming now to a case which presents a greater difficulty. My hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) thought this Clause was not strong enough, because it did not provide for those cases where the wife does not go to a court for an order. As I stated earlier, this is an attempt to put the officer in the same position as a soldier. My hon. Friend described the procedure of A.G.3E, whereby the wife who did not want to get a court order made application to the War Office, and the War Office adjudicated and arrived at approximately the same result as if the wife had gone to a court. It covered those hard cases of the soldier who has gone overseas and it is physically impossible to serve a notice of proceedings on him. My hon. Friend has considerable knowledge of this, because he served in a branch of the War Office which was constantly dealing with these matters during the war. He will know that the system worked exceedingly well, and was without the publicity and the invidious association of a court of law for an aggrieved wife. It was possible to arrive at a conclusion whereby the soldier could not ignore his marital responsibilities in regard to the maintenance of his wife. This branch of the War Office, having heard the evidence in privacy, and investigated the accuracy or otherwise of the statements made, then came to a decision. In the case of officers, a similar procedure will be followed as in the case of the soldiers. We want to put the officer in no different position, but we also do not want to see him in a worse position than a soldier.

Mr. Blackburn: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for accepting the principle. I hope he will look at the matter

again, because I have grave doubts whether this Clause will achieve what my right hon. Friend wants. I do not think there will be the same powers for compulsory stoppages of pay as those which apply in the case of the private soldier.

Mr. Bellenger: I certainly have not the legal knowledge of my hon. Friend. I am advised—and I have no evidence to the contrary—that this Clause does achieve what I have attempted to outline. I can only explain the Clause, and the purpose for which it was drafted. I was going on to say something about the interesting point which was raised, to whether an officer having satisfied the obligation in this manner, to maintain his wife, would then be in a position to draw a marriage allowance. In the case of a soldier, he does not draw the full amount but a proportion.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: He may draw the full amount if so much is required to meet the order.

Mr. Bellenger: The case of the officer will follow on identical lines, that of the soldier. The officer will be able to draw a proportion, but if the hon. Member would like to see a fuller explanation of the regulations and rules which have been issued under Army Order 94 of 1946, covering the point, I will send him a copy The point he has advanced will be met if this Clause is passed. Another point which was raised, was whether this Clause covered alimony in the case of a divorced wife. I am not quite certain about that. I rather think it is not covered by this Clause, any more than it is covered in the case of the soldier. I was asked whether these deductions from the pay of officers would be made to the wife, gross or net, after the deduction of income tax. I am not in a position to answer that at the moment, but I will endeavour to find out. I do not know what is the position in the case of civil proceedings, and whether a man has to pay the gross or net amount to his wife. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) raised the same point which he proposes to raise in the Naval Forces (Enforcement of Maintenance Liabilities) Bill, namely, whether we should extend this Clause to cover not only serving officers, but officers and soldiers after they have left the Forces, and whether we should


pursue them wherever they may be A they are drawing pensions from the Services.

Major Bruce: That was not the exact purpose. My right hon. Friend used the term "wherever they may be." That is not the intention. The intention is that they shall become liable to reductions only when beyond the reach of British judicial processes.

Mr. Bellenger: I do not think that is a fair liability to place on the Army. We are concerned to see that while we employ an officer or a soldier, he shall observe his duties but when he becomes a civilian, the ordinary processes of civil law ought to operate. We should not be asked to take on that additional liability, which, incidentally, does not apply in the case of a soldier, and should not therefore apply in the case of an officer.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: The phrase my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Portsmouth (Major Bruce) used about officers being outside British judicial processes is quite wrong. Although it is true the man may be abroad, and cannot therefore be served personally in connection with any proceedings, there is nevertheless such a thing as "substitute service." He can be contacted in exactly the same way as if he were in this country and an order can be made.

5.30 p.m.

Earl Winterton: I should like to raise a point of terminology. Since the Statute of Westminster was passed, any Act of this House has to be described as "an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom." I see here that the word used is, "Act." Perhaps the Minister will look into that point.

Mr. Bellenger: Certainly; it is a legal point, and I will take advice about it. But I do not think it affects the main purpose of this Clause. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) raised a point about the Dominion Forces. He knows that those Forces are under the authority of the Dominions. His other point was that this should apply if a soldier was serving overseas in the Dominions. The stoppage of pay of the officer in certain circumstances will apply wherever he is serving within the British Empire.

Mr. C. Williams: I also raised a point about the Channel Islands, and about equipment.

Mr. Bellenger: I am sorry I missed those two points. The Channel Islands have not been asked to come within this Bill. In the case of horses of officers I should say that they would be in the same category as equipment. Service Members, I know, would understand the reason for not allowing officers' or soldiers' equipment to be liable to distraint. After all, the officer or soldier has to tight battles and there are cavalry soldiers who still have horses and who could not perform their duties properly if they had no horses. I should assume that horses would be in the same category as an officer's sword, pistol, or accoutrements or any sort.

Mr. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman says he "assumes." Anyone can say that, but it does not necessarily make it right. We ought to have a firm assurance on the point. I would also like to ask whether Northern Ireland has been consulted. Have any negotiations taken place with the representatives of Northern Ireland?

Mr. Bellenger: We have consulted all the parties likely to be concerned with this Bill. I can now give the hon. Gentleman a categorical assurance that we shall not allow distraint upon an officer's horse. If an officer has deserted his wife we shall allow him to keep his horse, unencumbered, but so far as pay is concerned, we propose to see that a portion of it is stopped to help maintain his wife.

Major Legge-Bourke: Is there not a difference between equipment and a horse, as equipment normally goes on the officer, whereas an officer normally goes on the horse?

Mr. S. Silverman: May I be allowed to correct an intervention which I made just now, when my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) was speaking? He said that he thought this was not covered and I said, rather hastily, that it was covered by the next Clause. I think it will save discussion if you allow me to be sufficiently out of Order to refer to the point now, Mr. Beaumont, since it was discussed in relation to this Clause. I can only clear the point up by referring to the wording in the next Clause.

The Deputy-Chairman: That will be all right if it is convenient to the Committee.

Mr. Silverman: Clauses 4, 5, and 6 are intended to achieve the same common object of putting the officer in the same position as the soldier in regard to these matters.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member is not quite correct about Clause 6. That introduces a new position.

Mr. Silverman: Yes, I beg the hon. Member's pardon. I meant Clause 5.

The Deputy-Chairman: If the hon. Member wishes to continue and the Committee agrees, we will have the discussion on Clause 5 along with Clause 4 and then there will be no further discussion when Clause 5 is reached.

Mr. Silverman: If the Minister will look at Clause 5 he will find, in effect, that it wants to change the words, "not a soldier," as they appear in Section 145 of the Army Act, into "not a member of the Regular Forces." That was designed to achieve the result that Section 145 of the Army Act should apply to officers as well. If my right hon. Friend will look at that Section, and read into it the Amendment suggested by Clause 5, he will see exactly what has been done. It is a slip by the people who do not often slip in matters of this kind—the Parliamentary draftsmen. Here, I think they have slipped badly. Let me read Section 145, as it would be amended:
A soldier of the Regular Forces shall be liable to contribute to the maintenance of his wife, and of his children, and also to the maintenance of any bastard child of which he may be proved to be the father, to the same extent as if he were not a member of the Regular Forces.
The Clause amends the wrong word. It leaves the soldier still liable, and the officer still not liable. What Clause 5 ought to have done, in order to carry out the intention of my right hon. Friend, was to alter, in Section 145, the word "soldier," in the first line thereof, into "member." Section 145 would then have read:
A member of the Regular Forces shall be liable…
and the distinction between officers and soldiers would then have disappeared. As the Clause stands at present, the distinction which my right hon. Friend intends to remove remains. Instead of saying,

"not a soldier," you have said, "not a member of the Regular Forces." The person liable in Section 145, after we have passed Clause 5 of this Bill, will still be the soldier, and only the soldier, whereas it is intended to extend the application from the soldier to include the officer. That is precisely what the Clause neglects to do. I therefore suggest that my right hon. Friend should look at this drafting again, because, at the moment, it patently fails to achieve the purpose which he says, with the support of us all, he wishes to achieve.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Perhaps I might come to the rescue of the Minister. If the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will look at page 3 of the Bill, at the bottom, he will see that the point that he has just made is precisely covered.

Mr. Blackburn: With great respect, I think that is quite wrong. Clause 4, Subsection (2), to which I referred earlier, deals only with the case where there is an order, or distraint, in respect of maintenance. We are not dealing with that case; we are dealing with the usual and troublesome case where the soldier or officer goes overseas. It is then impossible to serve him with proceedings, and get an order against him.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: There is such a thing as substituted service.

Mr. Blackburn: Many of us have a good deal of experience of this matter, and I can assure the Committee that substituted service is, practically speaking, impossible. I have never heard of a case of substituted service against a serving officer or soldier. In any event, the point is quite irrelevant, because the Minister says that he wants to put the officer and the soldier in the same position. In the case of the soldier where the allowance is stopped, the matter is automatically considered by the Army authorities. The same should apply to the case of the officer. Where the officer stops the allowance to his wife, the matter should be automatically considered by the Army authorities. All you have to do, in Sections 144 and 145 is, instead of saying, "a soldier of the Regular Forces," to say, "a member of the Regular Forces," or, alternatively, "a soldier of the Regular Forces or an officer of the Regular Forces." If that were done then


our consideration of this Parliamentary draftsmanship, which has puzzled the Committee for two and a half hours, would have been entirely unnecessary. I should have thought that even an articled clerk would have thought of a solution of that kind. I ask my right hon. Friend to see that at a later stage this is amended, so that it may cover the intentions which he has so generously announced to the Committee.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: I cannot quite follow what my hon. Friend said on this question of substituted service. He said that he had never heard of a case of a soldier being served in that way, and that it was absolutely impossible to find out where the soldier was. That was an interesting observation, having regard to the argument which he was putting forward. If you cannot find the soldier it seems rather strange that he is receiving any wages at all. If the Army does not know where he is it is clear that he will not be receiving any wages. But if he is receiving his pay it is clear that somebody in the Army must know where he is; his address must be known. If his address is known, then substituted service could be effective.

Mr. Blackburn: It is not the practice of the Army authorities to furnish addresses of soldiers.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: This is extraordinary—

Mr. Blackburn: It is true.

Mr. Turner-Samuels: It may have been true in the past, but here we are seeking to make an Act of Parliament which is to bind the Army authorities. Now we are being told that those authorities will not act under the Act which Parliament will have to pass. That is really nonsense, and I cannot accept it at all. If a man in the Army is receiving his pay it must follow, as night the day, that the Army know where he is, otherwise he cannot be receiving his pay. If the Army knows where the man is then his whereabouts will be given, and in that way substituted service can be effected.

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Marlowe: Apart from the practical difficulties which the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) rightly pointed out in answer to the

hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels), that in practice no such service ever takes place, another difficulty in the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester is that in affiliation proceedings there is no such thing as substituted service.

Earl Winterton: I know the Committee will not think I am speaking in sarcastic tones—I am never sarcastic—when I say that, in view of the sparkling forensic information from the other side of the Committee, which has been wholly contradictory, it might facilitate the proceedings if we had a Law Officer of the Crown present. I always regard with the greatest respect legal authorities, especially when they sit on the benches opposite, but I think we would like to have the super legal opinion from one of the Law Officers. I make the serious suggestion that, as the Committee is in some difficulty, we might have a Law Officer here.

Mr. S. Silverman: I do not dissent in the least from what the noble Lord has said. When we are dealing with the interpretation of Statutes, whether the points raised are difficult or simple, and whether the opinion offered by other lawyers is the same or different, the Committee ought to be guided by the opinion of a Law Officer. But, in the absence of a Law Officer of the Crown, I would like to say that I think the point which I raised is a simple one and is not one such as to require the Committee to adjourn in order to get a Law Officer here. I only intervene to comment on a point which was raised by the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), who seems to think that the point I made was covered by Clause 4. I do not wish to debate that point; I think he is wrong, and I took the liberty of saying to him privately why I thought he was wrong, but I think he will agree with me when I say that even if he is right, the objection I am making to Clause 5 is still a good objection. If he is right, Clause 5 is unnecessary and ought to be removed.
Alternatively, if we are to keep Clause 5, it must be in order to achieve some purpose. Clause 5, as it is now drafted, achieves no purpose, good, bad or indifferent. It alters the words "not a soldier" into "not a member of the regular forces," at a point where the meaning of the Clause is not affected by the change. In order to affect any


change, still more such a change as is required here, in Section 145 of the Army Act we must amend the word "soldier" so that the person made liable shall be not "a soldier," which expression has always been held not to include an officer, but "a member of the regular forces"—a phrase which is now used to include both soldiers and officers. That point remains a good point, whether or not Clause 5 is unnecessary. It may not be necessary to have Clause 5 at all but, on the assumption that Clause 5 is necessary, it is so drafted as not to change the law unless a further amendment is made. I am not asking the Committee to turn itself into a body of Parliamentary draftsmen at this stage. I am only asking that my right hon. Friend should undertake to consult the Parliamentary draftsmen between now and the next stage in order to clear up the point.

Mr. Bellenger: I will endeavour briefly to put the matter in a way which, I hope, will convince my hon. Friends that we are legally doing what we are setting out to do. In Clause 4 we have referred to Section 137 of the Army Act which governs the position in relation to officers. In Subsection (1) of Clause 4, we have provided for the addition, at the end of Section 137, of another Subsection which will ensure that the officer shall be in the same position as the soldier in maintaining his family in certain circumstances.

Mr. Blackburn: rose—

Mr. Bellenger: In this very intricate argument, while I know that my hon. and learned Friends are well versed in war[Laughter]—I should have said "law," though in war, too, in some cases—I hope they will allow me to put my argument without interruption, so that, perhaps, they will be convinced, and if they are not convinced they may then say what they want to say. In Clause 4 we go on to say
An officer … shall be liable to contribute … to the same extent as if he were not a member of the regular Forces.
If we had said,
as if he were not a soldier,
that would have been incorrect because an officer is not a soldier. So we, therefore, have to say that in relation to the conditions governing a soldier, which are covered in Section 145 of the Army Act,

the officer shall be put into the same position, but we have to use different terminology. We cannot use the word "soldier" because an officer is not a soldier, so we attempt in Clause 4 to describe him as if he were, as actually he is, a member of the regular Forces. In Clause 5 we have to amend Section 145 of the Army Act, because in that Section a soldier is described as a soldier.
Therefore, if we wish to put the officer into the same position as the soldier—and we say we are going to do that in the new Section 144A—we must relate it to something which is understandable, and we have to say that the officer and the soldier are members of the regular Forces. This is purely a matter of terminology and of description which we are putting right, because hitherto, and, probably, in the future, the officer in other respects is described as an officer, and the soldier is described as a soldier; but in this respect, in relation to their responsibilities to their wives and children, we have to use a term which will be adequate for both officer and soldier. Although I have not the legal experience of my hon. Friends, I hope the advice which I have been able to get from my expert advisers will assure them that the position which I have tried to explain is one which is satisfactory from a legal point of view.

Mr. Blackburn: I agree that Clause 4 (1), dealing with Section 137 of the Army Act, very largely covers the point. I think the Committee was led astray by the hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) who interrupted me and said that compulsory stoppage of pay came under Section 145. I said it came under Section 137, and it is Section 137 which relates to officers. There is still considerable difference between the officer and the soldier, because in the case of the soldier, as soon as the allowance is stopped he is automatically seen by a welfare officer and the matter is automatically considered by the War Office. In the case of the officer he does not make a compulsory allowance to his wife. I think, perhaps, the Secretary of State might consider later that point as to whether it would not be a good thing, particularly for young officers, to contribute to the support of their wives in the same way as soldiers. Secondly, I would like to suggest that all this discussion could have been avoided by a very simple piece of Parliamentary draftsmanship. We must not allow Parliamentary


draftsmen to get away with this sort of thing, with two or three pages of material which have taken us hours to try to consider properly, when it might have been done much more simply.

Mr. S. Silverman: I think my right hon. Friend has proved conclusively that the intention which he wished carried out is, in fact, carried out. What he has proved is that it is not carried out by Clause 5, but it is carried out somewhere else. I still say that Clause 5, on his own interpretation, becomes totally unnecessary and that what we ought to have done should have been to amend the word "soldier" in Section 145 of the Act in both places. There would have been no harm in that. We would have avoided ambiguity, and we should not have had to deal with officers and soldiers in different Sections of the Army Act, when they could have been dealt with in the one Section.

Major Bruce: I want to ask a question on an entirely different matter. I asked my right hon. Friend to consider inserting in the Bill some safeguard similar to that contained in the Naval Forces (Enforcement of Maintenance Liabilities) Bill. My right hon. Friend did not reply on that point, and if he would give me some indication of his intention I would be obliged.

Mr. Bellenger: I cannot give any satisfaction in the direction which my hon. and gallant Friend wants. The whole purpose of Clause 4, and Clause 5 which is consequential, is to put the officer in the same position as the soldier. I cannot go any further than that today.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Interim orders for deductions from pay towards maintenance of wife and children.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: This Clause deals with a slightly different matter from the other Clause which we have been discussing. Under this Clause power is taken to make interim orders for reduction of pay of both soldiers and officers

for the maintenance of their wives. In my opinion, the provisions are entirely sound, and I do not think anyone would seek to obstruct their passage, but perhaps I might say a word about the background of this Clause, because I think it is relevant. I have some personal knowledge of the matter from having had something to do with its administration during the war. One of the great difficulties which were experienced during the war was the fact that we took soldiers away from their homes and families, and very often away from any ready means of communication. When those circumstances arose we found that there was often a delay in receiving letters, and that occasionally there were unfortunate comments by mothers-in-law and others, which put into the heads of some men overseas ideas which were totally unjustified and which led them to take action they would never have taken if they had been aware of the facts.
6.0 p.m.
The result of that was a very serious interference with morale. It did not only operate in the case of the single individual who might get suspicious of the conduct of his wife during his absence. I heard of one case—and I have no reason to doubt that it was true—of a unit fighting in North Africa, which had two or three really unfortunate cases of infidelity by wives occurring at about the same time. The result was that these cases became known throughout the unit, and practically every man who had experienced delay in receiving his mail, or for other causes which normally would not have raised any suspicion in his mind, jumped to the conclusion that his wife was misbehaving in this country. The loss of morale in that unit was so great that it could not be sent into battle at a time when it was needed.
It was obviously imperative during the war that some action should be taken to correct that. What happened was that a man, on getting suspicious, lost his temper and gave instructions that the allowances paid to his wife should be withdrawn immediately. In a case where the wife was entirely innocent, that resulted, of course, in great hardship. But even where the wife was not entirely innocent, the result of the withdrawal of the allowances was thoroughly bad, for this reason. If the woman had been, to use a vulgarism, "carrying on" with a man, if her


allowances were stopped and she was left entirely destitute, she very often had no other course but to accept the advances of any man, to throw herself into his arms, and to part finally from her husband. Our experience in such cases was that usually, if misbehaviour had arisen only by reason of enforced absence, when the husband returned to this country and got to know the facts, and the wife made a clean breast of it, they were reunited and no permanent harm was done. Therefore, the right way to deal with that situation was to provide some such machinery as is now included in this new Section of the Army Act, to enable the allowances to be continued temporarily so as to prevent a sudden breach before an attempt at reconciliation could be made. For that reason powers were taken under regulations, as was possible during the war, to do exactly what is proposed to be done by Clause 6 of this Bill.
The question which I wish to raise is this. The opening words of the new Section 145A of the Army Act say:
Where an application has been made to the Army Council…
I take it that that application could only be made by or on behalf of the wife. In other words, the Clause as it stands would operate only after the wife has complained; that is, after the allowance has been cut off. That is locking the door after the horse has got out of the stable. I should have thought it was desirable to take powers of this sort at a rather earlier stage. In other words, not to have to wait until the wife has been cut off and has complained in order to put the allowance back, but to take power to say to a soldier who applies to have the allowance stopped: "No, you shall not stop your wife's allowance until the case has been investigated and some further action taken on it." It may be that the Clause is wide enough to cover such a case. It may be that the administrative machinery is such that a wife can be told; "Your allowance is going to be cut off," in order to give her time to complain before the action to stop it is taken. If that is the position, I should like an assurance from the Government.

Major Legge-Bourke: There is one aspect of this Clause to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee. Where an officer has been made to pay an interim order under this Clause, and is them found to be not so bound, as

far as I can make out from past experience the officer—and the soldier who has previeusly been affected by this Clause—has had to stand the cost, whether or not the order is eventually made permanent. By this Clause officers are now brought under the same conditions. I am not trying to single out officers at all. But it does seem to me that some alteration should be made to the Act to enable some repayment to be made, both to officers and to other ranks who are found not to be bound in any way, despite the fact of having paid an interim order. I thought seriously of putting down an Amendment on this matter, but it is not a very easy one to draft. I am not at all certain exactly what is the practice of the Army Council in this matter. I rather think the right hon. Gentleman may have powers, as it stands, to adjust this matter without amendment. I should like to hear more on that, and, if it is necessary for some Amendment to be moved, I hope it may be done before the Bill finally passes from us.

Mr. Bellenger: The hon. Member for South Hendon (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), who has considerable knowledge of these matters, has explained the procedure which operated during the war, I think under the Defence (Armed Forces) Regulation. The purpose of that Regulation was to ensure that, as far as humanly possible, a soldier supported his wife and his legitimate children, and that he did not by any arbitrary act leave them destitute. The Committee knows that we are putting the officer in the same position as the soldier, under Clauses which we have already passed. The marriage allowance which the State paid to a soldier was drawn by the wife of the soldier through the post office. The marriage allowance in the case of the officer was drawn by the officer. That explains why the last portion of the hon. Gentleman's speech, in which he suggested that there ought to be earlier action taken to prevent the wife being left destitute, cannot apply to the officer in the same way as to the soldier. In the case of the soldier, the receipt of the money is effected by the soldier's wife through the post office; in the case of the officer, the officer makes what allowance he considers necessary to the wife, and if he does that he receives the marriage allowance direct.
During the war we found that this machinery which was instituted as a


temporary measure, worked very well. It saved quite a number of marriages; and it certainly saved quite a number of women and children from being left destitute, for reasons which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, or in cases where the soldier himself had decided to transfer his affections somewhere else and to ignore his duties and responsibilities to his lawful wife. Perhaps the Committee will permit me to explain, quite briefly the procedure, when a soldier decides that he wants to terminate his allotment, which enables his wife to draw her marriage allowance. When he goes to his commanding officer and says he wants to stop that allowance—for whatever reason; and quite often he does not give a reason at all, but merely says he wants to stop it—a period is enforced, during which he is not allowed to stop his allotment. If his compulsory allotment is not stopped the marriage allowance is issued. During that period attempts are made at reconciliation between the soldier and his wife, and in many of those cases, as instanced by the hon. Member for South Hendon, where the soldier had received false or alarming reports of the misconduct of his wife while he was away, it was found that the soldier was persuaded by evidence or reports supplied by many voluntary institutions—by welfare officers, the Sailors', Soldiers' and Airmen's Families Association, and other helpful voluntary organizations—that there was not the slightest reason, as far as the conduct of his wife was concerned, to warrant him stopping her marriage allowance. Then, during that period, reconciliation took place, and nothing else happened, except perhaps a contrite letter from the soldier to his wife saying how sorry he was for ever believing the reports about her.
Of course, there are cases—and, unfortunately too many of them—where the soldier is determined to cease contributing to his wife's maintenance. In those cases, if the wife took the normal procedure and obtained a court order, the evidence was all sifted as between the soldier and his wife. Where the wife did not go to the court for an order, but came or wrote to the War Office, then that particular branch of the War Office which I mentioned previously this afternoon, themselves adjudicated on the case and decided whether there was any reason for the soldier stopping the allowance. But, if

the wife—and it is the wife who takes the initiative—says that her husband has stopped her allowance and can make out a prima facie case—which is the provision this Clause covers—then, in that interim period, we take powers to force the soldier to make that allotment to his wife, which will enable her to draw the marriage allowance while the case is being considered. That is the purpose of the Regulation which was instituted during the war. We found it worked very well indeed. Incidentally, it has mended many marriages; and in those marriages which have not been mended, it has put the position on a firm basis as to who was in the right and who was in the wrong. We want to continue that permanently, so far as the Army Act is permanent, and that is the reason why we have introduced this Clause today.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that information, and I am very glad to hear that the machinery with which I was familiar during the war is still continuing. However, I should like to ask him: Is he satisfied that he has completely covered the gaps between the time the paymaster receives notification to withdraw the allowance and the time the wife can apply? This new Clause only becomes effective on the late application by the wife, and if there were a gap it would mean that the wife would, in fact, be without an allowance for whatever period the gap lasted.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: On the whole, I am satisfied that the period between the notification by the paymaster to the wife that her allowance has been stopped by her husband, and the opportunity given to her to make application to the War Office, is such that, during that period, she is not left destitute.

Mr. Grimston: The right hon. Gentleman has not replied to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke). I think he made it quite clear. We do not in any way oppose this; we welcome this Clause; but there is the point that there may be cases where a soldier or an officer is really entitled to stop the allowance, and the War Office force him to continue it pending their investigations. In cases where those investigations prove the soldier was right,


the man will have been forced to contribute his compulsory allotment by the War Office in circumstances in which he should not have been forced to do so. Can any provision be made, in cases such as that, for repayment to be made? It may be that the War Office may take some considerable time in investigating the case, and in all that time the soldier will be forced to make an allotment that he is entitled to withdraw.

Mr. Bellenger: I am seized of the point. It is in the case of the guilty wife, where the husband would be held to have been justified in stopping her allowance. I think it is only reasonable that a husband, who has taken his wife for better or for worse, should expect to allow a little time to elapse before her guilt is established. It would have to be established in a court of law. I do not think, speaking for myself, that a husband should suddenly cut off his wife, even though, perhaps, she has been guilty of misconduct. At any rate, it should be proved conclusively. I do not know what the position is in civil law, but I should have thought a wife who is entitled to pledge her husband's credit, can continue to do that until the husband takes steps to stop her doing so, and that must entail a period before he can give notice to the world that he will not be responsible for his wife's debts. I think it only fair that there should be some reasonable period during which the case can be proved. I do not think, without further examination, that it is causing any great injustice to the officer or the soldier to say to him, "You are not to stop maintaining your wife until we have had reasonable opportunity of seeing who is at fault."

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 7.—(Amendment of Army Act, Section 163 (1).)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. C. Williams: I should like to draw the attention of the Secretary of State and of the Committee to the rather amazing language of this Clause. It does not seem to me to be one of those Clauses of which one can say it may be clear to legal brains. I think the complexity of the mixture of words here can hardly have been exceeded in any Bill. It states:
After paragraph (i) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:

'(ii) Where the proceedings are proceedings against an officer or soldier on a charge of being a deserter or absentee'"—
It might be worse: but then it goes on:
'—without leave, and the officer or soldier has been apprehended and has on arrest'"—
He could not have been taken into custody before arrest, could he?—
'…on arrest been taken into the custody of a provost-marshal, assistant provost-marshal or other officetr,…' 
What happens if he has been arrested up to this time by someone who is not an officer? It is possible for that to happen. It does not seem quite clear as to that. It goes on:
'A certificate purporting to have been signed by such provost-marshal, assistant provost-marshal or other officer, and stating the fact, date and place of arrest, shall be evidence of the matters so stated'
Why do we want to put in "certificate purporting"? It may be a legal phrase, but I should have thought it was hardly necessary to put it in that way. It seems to me that this is a matter on which we are repeating ourselves several times. I wish we had a Law Officer of the Crown here to tell us how to draft the Clause properly. In a very few lines we have what must be one of the worst bits of legal jargon ever put before the House or this Committee. I protest against it, and I ask where there is any purpose or reason for this Clause at all.
Consider these words:
A certificate purporting to have been signed…shall be evidence of the matters so stated.
Is this the usual form? Is this something new? Is it necessary at this time of day to come to the House of Commons, which, we are told, is so very busy, and ask us to pass a Clause of this kind? I think we might have some explanation. I see grave doubt on the face of the Patronage Secretary, as to whether the Secretary of State for War has not been wasting our time by putting in these words. For that reason the right hon. Gentleman had better explain himself. I should like an explanation: the Committee would like one; and the Patronage Secretary, undoubtedly, would like one.

Mr. Bellenger: I quite agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should economise in the time and labour, not only of the House of Commons, but of the Army. Indeed, in some of the Debates that have taken place recently we have been accused of wasting manpower. The effect of this


Clause is to economise in manpower. Before the Defence Regulation was brought in a lot of time was wasted by officers having to go to a court-martial to prove one thing—merely, that Private Thomas Atkins had surrendered himself or had been apprehended; and to satisfy the court-martial that this individual in the court was Private Thomas Atkins, and that he had been apprehended, or had surrendered to the provost-marshal or some other officer. That was considered, in war, at any rate, to be a waste of manpower and of time. During peace, of course, not so much time will be saved; but still there will be an economy in the time of officers, who otherwise, if this regulation lapses, would have to go to the court and go through what is, more or less, a formal procedure of identification and certification. This Clause merely puts into more permanent form a Regulation adopted during the war, whereby the provost-marshal or other officer apprehending the man, or to whom the man surrendered, signed a certificate to the court, and the court took that as evidence that Private Thomas Atkins surrendered, or had been apprehended, at a certain time on a certain day. I hope the hon. Gentleman will let this Clause go through as being a good attempt by the Government to economise in Service manpower.

Mr. C. Williams: I could not possibly let the Clause go through as quickly as that, because where the Government have reason to claim credit we ought to pay that credit to them. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for putting this Clause into the Bill. I congratulate him, and those under him. For the first time the Government have put a really good Clause into a Bill—any Bill. It is a terrific relief to me to be able to say that there is one thing which they are doing to save manpower. They have not done it in any other way. But, at any rate, we have now got a good example of how to save manpower. I am pleased with it; the Committee are pleased; and the Patronage Secretary is delighted now, whereas he was not a few minutes ago. For now we may be able to say, anyway, if the Government want to get an adequate Chancellor of the Exchequer, they can go to the Secretary of State for war, because he has saved a little manpower once in his life.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 9.—(Military corrective establishments.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Earl Winterton: This is a very important Clause, and, I am sure, will receive the support of Members on both sides of the Committee. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to say a word upon it. First, perhaps, I may say as one who was for some time an assistant Minister at the Home Office, that, as I understand this Clause, its provisions are intended to carry out in the Army, a reform equal in magnitude to the admirable reforms carried out in penology some years ago. Some hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee may have had the advantage that I have had of visiting at one time or another the experimental prison at Wakefield. At that civil prison convicts are put on their honour in many ways. They are allowed to work practically without guards. The effect on those men has been to reduce what is known—to use the technical jargon—as recidivism to the most astonishing degree. I have always thought—and I think that those hon. Members with experience of this will agree with me—that something of the same kind should apply to the Army; that a certain type of offender, instead of being sent to a prison or detention barracks, should be sent to a place where he can receive this remedial treatment.
I would invite the right hon. Gentleman to tell us about how many of these buildings it is proposed to have. As I say, in civil administration it has proved a very great success. I hope that included in the system—if I may have the attention of the right hon. Gentleman—will be some system of—I do not like the word "phsycho-analytical," because it has come rather into disrepute in recent years—some system of examination of the offender, to see whether he is altogether normal. That has been one side of the penal remedial system in civil prisons, and it has been found in some cases that the men were not responsible for their actions. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to say a word on the subject. I think it might have a beneficial effect on the Army and, indeed, on the recruiting for the Regular Army.

Mr. George Ward: I should like, from the Air Force point of view, also to welcome the idea of this Clause. I also ask the Secretary of State to tell us a little bit more about what is intended by these establishments. How is it to be decided who is to go to a detention barracks and who is to go to a corrective establishment? Will it be decided according to the type of offence, or the type of offender, whether he is a first offender or not? Or will it be done according to the length of the sentence awarded? Will short-term people go to the corrective establishments? There are many points of that sort we should like to know about.
Apparently men are to be allowed out of the establishments on parole for certain periods. It is the fact that when a man goes to a detention barrack his pay is stopped. Is his pay to be stopped when he goes to a corrective establishment? If so, what happens when he goes out during these periods of parole? Does he get his pay back for those periods, or is his pay not stopped at all, during the time he is there? I think that is an important point, on which we should like some information. I welcome this provision, but I think we ought to have these points cleared up before we pass this Clause.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I am very glad to respond to the invitation of the noble Lord to say a little more about this Clause, which he rightly described as most important, embodying the changes in the system of punishments in the Army and Royal Air Force, to which my predecessor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) referred in this House on 2nd July, 1946. A very interesting experiment is about to take place. Although a great deal has been done during the war to rehabilitate the soldier who has, for various reasons, misconducted himself during his service, we intend to take that progress still further. As the noble Lord has said, we have taken the best possible advice and experience, including the experience of the Home Office, which has gone exhaustively into these matters, and our intention is to use the military corrective establishments, as we are going to call them, not exactly as a place of punishment for the soldier who has fallen by the wayside, but as an institution which will rehabilitate him, so that

he can once again become a good soldier performing his military duties properly. He is also advanced a step further on the road to that high standard of citizenship, which is incorporated in all the educational efforts that we are making for the young soldiers.
It would take too long at this stage to explain the detailed points in connection with this experiment, and, if the Committee permit me, I will consider whether it is not possible, on some future occasion, in some way or other, to acquaint hon. Members with much fuller details than I am able to give tonight as to the methods and machinery which we are going to adopt to carry out the object underlying this Clause. Perhaps I might briefly outline the stages of the soldier's training, because they will receive training in these corrective establishments. Under this scheme, a soldier sentenced to detention, will serve the first period of his sentence in a military corrective establishment, in which there will be psychiatrists who will be able possibly, to help him, and, certainly, to form an opinion as to his mental attitude. We have found in the Army, and I imagine that the same is true of the Royal Air Force, that a psychiatrist has been able to help a great deal in eliminating some particular trouble which has affected the soldier or airman, and which might land him into some form of crime or misdemeanour involving him in a sentence of detention. In the preliminary stage of this training, he will undergo a strictly disciplined and corrective individual training. In other words, a lot of the training which he goes through in his ordinary military life with his unit, will be intensified, because the soldier has only reached the position of being committed to the detention barracks because he has been a bad soldier, and, therefore, we have to elevate him and bring up his standard of military conduct, training and discipline so that he is brought back to the position—which is occupied by most soldiers—of being a good soldier.

Earl Winterton: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that every man who is committed to detention will, as a matter of course, go to a corrective establishment for his preliminary training?

Mr. Bellenger: Just as in the case of the model civil prison at Wakefield, we


are setting up what I might call a model corrective barracks. I believe we have in mind at the moment to set up one immediately, but I am speaking without checking up the facts. At the moment, of course, we have not got the ideal places to which we could send all soldiers in detention, so that it will take a little while thoroughly to implement this proposal, but our intention is that the whole system of punishments in the army shall be organised eventually, through these military corrective establishments. If a soldier is now sentenced to detention, he will go to one of these establishments.

Mr. George Ward: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that men sentenced to detention would do the first stage of their punishment at one of these establishments and then go to a detention barracks. Surely, that seems an odd thing to do? First, the man is given corrective training under good conditions and under observation by a psychiatrist, and then, having made him into a good soldier, we are to send him into a detention barracks.

Mr. Bellenger: No. I do not want to give that impression, and I was going on to say what the next stage was. The first stage would be spent in one of the corrective establishments, where the man would undergo severe or strict discipline and individual training. After that, he would go to another military corrective establishment. May I put it this way? The period of serving his sentence of detention will be divided into three stages. After the first stage, which I have just outlined, the soldier will go on his road to rehabilitation through the second stage, in which he will be given lighter conditions and in which military training will not be so strict. He will be branched off in a direction which will tend to teach him, or to encourage him, to reach a better standard in many of the aptitudes which he possesses. For example, a soldier from the Royal Army Ordnance Corps will have certain qualities when he comes in first of all. The emphasis, at first, will not be on those qualities, but on the military training and discipline. After he has served that period, he goes on to what I may call further studies and further education, and, in the latest period, he will be given an opportunity of going out

on parole. That will mean that he will be given the opportunity, which many soldiers had during the war when their sentences were suspended, of going back to his unit and so rehabilitating himself in that way.

Earl Winterton: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but this is a question of great interest and importance. I think he will find, although I am speaking without the book, that this system is quite different from the admirable system in civilian prisons. The Wakefield experiment was set up by the Home Office in order to give to a certain type of prisoner, who would benefit from a particular treatment, the chance to avoid the risk of becoming a regular offender. This is quite different, irrespective of whether they are to be sent to these establishments. This is quite a novel principle. It is a different system, and the men are not selected because of the advantage they are likely to gain from a particular type of treatment.

Mr. Bellenger: I think the establishment which has been referred to deals with what I might call the hardened criminals, who then go to a prison. They do not serve sentences in a military detention barracks, but go to a civil prison. We are dealing with the vast majority of offenders, who are not hardened sinners, but who need some training to bring them back to the proper standard. Therefore, they need a different kind of treatment from that to which the noble Lord referred, which really applies to the "old lags" and the hardened sinners. At the third stage, the man will be a soldier ready to go back to his unit, and, because of that, we are going to give him the opportunity of tasting freedom again by allowing him out on unescorted parole at least once a week.
The time has been too short for me to explain this scheme thoroughly and in detail, but I will endeavour to acquaint hon. Members with a good deal more information in some other way. The whole purpose of the scheme is to take these people who are committed to detention, through three stages, in an effort to bring them back to rehabilitation, and not to force them into a further life of crime and misdemeanour but, by training, to make them into good soldiers and good citizens. This has been carried out to a certain extent during the war. We are now going to intensify it, and that is why we want


this Clause to enable us to carry on something which the noble Lord agreed was a very good idea.

Major Legge-Bourke: I welcome the introduction of these establishments, because I think they will serve a very good purpose, but I differ from the right hon. Gentleman on the way in which they should be set up. From what he said, there is one point about which I think a mistake is being made. If we send a man to a corrective centre, and, in the first stage of his training there, we give him individual training, I think we should run a very great danger that he will associate, for evermore in his mind, training with punishment, and it is most important that we should avoid that. Personally, I am all for keeping prisoners physically fit, but we must be very careful before we accept the idea of a man learning, in a corrective centre, the job he will have to do in his own regiment. I think that may lead to a lot of trouble, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider that point very carefully.
There is one question which I would like to ask. Is it the intention to set up these establishments elsewhere, in B.A.O.R., and in the Colonial stations for our men? It seems to me very important that we should consider the matter very carefully before we accept this idea carte blanche. I cannot help remembering that an officer of the Adjutant-General's branch, during the war, came out and addressed a gathering of all ranks in Syria, and told us, in order to encourage us and show us how difficult it was for us to get home on leave, that the difficulty was that there were no ships. He also told us that he had five officers who had been waiting under close arrest for a long time, whom he had been unable to send home, and there were no places in which they could be kept in detention in Syria. It is most important that, when our troops serve overseas, the conditions there should be brought up as near as possible to what they are at home. I hope that the intention is to spread this idea to Dominion troops as well, and that it has already been mentioned to them. I should he interested to hear what reception it has had. It seems to me that this is something which is highly desirable, and which should be shared by as many people as possible.
6.45 p.m.
In conclusion, I would say that it is most important that we should subdivide the hardened type from the others, and I should like to make one suggestion. I believe that, for many years past, a great many officers sentenced men to detention, who had had not the foggiest notion of what detention was like, and, possibly, had never been inside a detention barracks. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will take this opportunity of ensuring that as many as possible of the officers who are entitled to award detention shall visit these corrective centres, and, indeed, the detention barracks. It is highly important that it should be realised by such officers to what they are sentencing their men when they award detention, and the sooner the young officer gets to know it the better. I suggest that it might be a suitable thing to begin with the young officer when he is in his embryonic stage at Sandhurst. The sooner everyone is aware of the punitive arrangements in the Army, and the Air Force, the better, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will bear that point in mind.

Mr. Tolley: Very briefly I want to say how much we on this side of the House welcome this Bill. The right hon. Gentleman said that, at a later stage, he would amplify some of the questions put to him. I want to ask him, in view of the keen interest taken in this matter, that, when he reports to the House from time to time, he will say something about the success or otherwise of what I will call this experiment.

Mr. George Ward: The right hon. Gentleman did not answer my question about pay. May I take it that during the third period some part, at least, of the pay of a soldier under detention will be restored? Otherwise, how is a man to go out on parole?

Mr. Bellenger: As the hon. Member knows, detention automatically carries with it the suspension of pay. I would welcome further opportunities of telling the Committee about the progressive steps we are taking in the Army, to make it conform, as it were, to modern ideas, but, unfortunately, the time at my disposal today is too short. My best opportunity for doing so is when I make my Estimate speech each year, and then, I am afraid, I have so much else to talk about, that it


is not always possible to do what my hon. Friend asks. Nevertheless, I will do my best to see that hon. Members know what is happening.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Welfare Committees.)

Notwithstanding anything contained in the Army Act or the Air Force Act there shall be set up in every unit and establishment of the Army and the Royal Air Force a welfare committee composed of representatives of all ranks elected by ballot sitting together with the commanding officer or officers nominated by him to provide for the free discussion of all matters affecting the general welfare of the men in each such unit or establishment and their amenities.—[Mr. W. Wells.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. William Wells: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In order not to raise the expectations of hon. Members opposite too high, I think that I should start by explaining that the purpose of this Clause is neither to overthrow the Government, nor to introduce some kind of strange new institution into the Services which will subvert all discipline. My hon. Friends and I who have put down this new Clause were all in the Services during the war; we all held commissioned rank, and we all appreciate the importance of this Clause. Our object is a much more modest one—that of bringing Army and Air Force practice into line with what has now been announced to be the practice of the Royal Navy. In introducing the Naval Estimates, on 18th March, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, when referring to the Canteen Committees which exist in the ships of the Navy said:
We now intend to replace them with Welfare Committees with the object of providing machinery for the free discussion between officers and men of matters affecting the general welfare of the men within the ship or establishment concerned and their amenities. The members of the Welfare Committees will be democratically elected by ballot, and will sit together with a small number of officers nominated by the Captain. In this way, we hope that every man in the Navy will feel that he has a part in the creation of the best possible conditions on board his ship."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th March, 1947; Vol. 435, C. 221.]

It is precisely with the object outlined by my hon. Friend in that last sentence that my hon. Friends and I have been actuated in putting down this Clause. It has not always been the fact, in the history of the Services, that the Navy has been first in the field with reforms, though it has always held pride of place in the affections of the nation, and I would say that, at least in welfare matters, the Army has probably led the other Services. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] That remark might, perhaps, be contentious. It obviously is, but I have said it, and I stand by it. I think that, at the outset, we are confronted, not by the difficulty, but by the fact that the Army Act, as at present drafted, and also the Air Force Act, which deals with this matter in almost identical terms, restricts anything in the nature of collective complaints. The Army Act says that the only way of dealing with complaints is that the soldier has to go to his captain, or, if he wants to complain about his captain, to the commanding officer. The "Manual of Military Law" adds this note:
Complaints may be made respecting any matter, but can be made by individuals only. Combined complaints, therefore, can never be permissible, but should not, if well founded, be treated as mutinous, where it is plain that the only object of those making the complaint is to secure redress of the matters by which they think themselves wronged.
I, personally, regard that note to the Manual as highly objectionable, but it is not a matter which is directly affected by the new Clause now before the Committee. The object of the Clause goes much further than merely dealing with complaints. Its whole object is to prevent complaints from arising, except in so far as they may be purely individual and personal ones. It has been proved in the past that collective action of this kind has been frowned upon by the Service authorities, and has been regarded as being a halfway house towards mutiny. That is clear from the footnote which I have just read.
I do not want to waste too much of the time of the Committee in generalisations about the changed nature of the Services, and all those things, about which we have all heard so often in this House and elsewhere But it is a fact that we are now dealing in the Services with a very different type of man from that with which we were dealing 100 years ago, and, although the need for


discipline still exists, the methods by which it is enforced must be adjusted. We cannot apply the same kind of discipline to members of a well educated citizen Army as was applied to the victims of the press gang and to the poor, wretched, uneducated men who were driven by desperation in past years to take the King's shilling. We are always being told of the need in the Services for explaining to the men the object of any particular action which it is proposed to take. When we have given the explanation, we then give the order, and they are carried out. I believe that that is perfectly sound, but I also believe that that obtains just as much in matters of discipline and administration as it does in operational orders.
My hon. Friends and I would not deny for a moment that the commanding officer must remain responsible for the welfare and discipline of the unit he commands. Our object in moving this new Clause is to help him to discharge his responsibilities in a modern and democratic way, by following the words of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, and making every man in the unit feel that it is part of his duty and responsibility to create good conditions and a good atmosphere in his unit. This Clause is put forward in the utmost seriousness, and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: I have much pleasure in supporting the new Clause which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells). As he has said, those of us on this side of the Committee who have put our names to this Clause have done so with no intention of weakening the discipline of the Forces. In fact, the intention of the Clause is to strengthen it, by getting the positive co-operation of the men. A document entitled "Improvements in the Way of Life of the Soldier," issued by the War Office on 30th August last year, says:
Discipline must, in the view of the War Office, be based on mutual confidence and respect, rather than on rigid rules.
We feel that the spirit of this new Clause is very much in tune with that sentiment.
We are also anxious that there should be greater co-ordination than there has been in the past of the way in which these matters are treated in the different

Services. As my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall has pointed out, the Navy, in this respect, is far ahead of the other Services, as far ahead, I think we may say, as it is far behind in the democratic selection of its officers. The Air Force falls some way behind the Navy, with station committees dealing with welfare matters, the members of which committees, I understand, are nominated, rather than elected. On the question of the representation of suggestions and complaints, the War Office comes a good way behind the other two Services. We hope that, as a result of putting down this Clause, both the Army and the Air Force will come up to the standard announced for the Navy.
7.0 p.m.
What is the present position in the Army? On 22nd October, 1946, it was stated in this House by the Financial Secretary to the War Office, when he made it clear that
complaints through the normal Service channels may be made about any matter affecting the individual. Such complaints may be made by an individual only, but need not be confined to matters affecting him alone. The soldier is told he has only to apply to his officer to seek redress, and this method is well known throughout the Army."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd October, 1946; Vol. 427, c. 1454.]
That may be an arrangement for seeking individual redress but we are not primarily concerned with this today. In the document from which I have already quoted the War Office announces the institution of "request hours," to be held at company or battalion level, and it explains that
these hours are not intended for complaints, which are to be submitted in the normal way through the established channels to the subunit commander. Their object is for the soldier to have the opportunity to put forward constructive suggestions for the improvement of his unit
and for his own benefit and the benefit of his fellows. It is our submission that this system of request hours falls short of requirements, and we say this because we feel that it is a matter left largely to individual initiative. If it is intended to have "request hours" at which an officer is able to meet other ranks altogether, there is still the feeling that no individual is responsible for representing the collective grievances of his fellows. One will tend to get the meetings used by the "barrack room lawyer," or


secondly, the ordinary man will think that this is not a matter for him and that there is no reason why he should take any great part or why he should get up and take precedence of his fellows.
The third method of dealing with welfare for the ordinary man is through the welfare officer or by the section officer. The work done by welfare officers is of very great value and importance and we are anxious that it should continue successfully. But it is only successful—as we often demonstrated during the war—where one has good officers. Some of my hon. Friends will agree that there is often a "Charity Organisation Society" attitude in which the officer gives the impression that he is doing "something good for the lower classes." That is not the democratic spirit which we want to see introduced. We want to see a fully adequate system of welfare, and we want regular meetings of representatives of the men at a company or a battery level. We also think that the representatives of the men should be elected, for some of us remember the old system of holding messing committee meetings in the past, in which the sergeant-major went round saying "You, and you, and you will serve on the messing committee, at such and such an hour." If there are to be representatives of the men they should be elected representatives, men who are thought to be fitted for the duty and who are fully willing to serve, and they should go with full opportunity to consult their constituents and to report back on what takes place at the meetings. We also think that these meetings should be properly minuted and that there should be a proper order of business. The minutes should be fully accessible to the other ranks and should be inspected regularly by higher formations.
In the good unit such things as this may have been done, but in the bad unit the system breaks down, and so long as there are bad units, higher formations should inspect regularly and take up the matters raised at welfare committee meetings. I want to quote briefly an example of the kind of thing which was not only most unfortunate, but which would have been avoided if there had been proper arrangements in the Army in these matters in past years. I refer to the Kluang incident, which led to something tantamount to mutiny and for which sentences were

passed which later had to be suspended when the whole facts became known in this House. It was clear that the men were, in the words of the note which my hon. Friend has already read out,
trying to procure redress in a matter in which they felt they were wronged.
Many of the other matters in which they felt they were wronged were subsequently redressed. As a consequence of the incident, improvements were made, camps were cleaned up, many tents were condemned, roads were made, sanitary arrangements were improved and so on. But that was only after a severe act of indiscipline brought the matter to the attention of this House and the world. This was a case where welfare officers apparently were not fulfilling their functions.
The men should have been able, under proper machinery, to have had the opportunity of ventilating their grievances. But the men had to make an orderly protest by parading on the sea wall to present their grievances to the commanding officer. When the commanding officer arrived he did not give them the chance to inform him of their troubles. On 8th October the Secretary of State informed this House that
after the men had moved to the canteen they were there addressed by the commanding officer to the effect that they should air their grievances in the proper way, that he could not entertain collective grievances, and that if they refused to return to duty they would be guilty of mutiny."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th October, 1946; Vol. 427, c. 38.]
Had some machinery of the kind that we are advocating been in existence at that unit the grievances of these men would have been apparent to the officers in time for them to be dealt with and there would consequently not have been indiscipline such as finally resulted.
We are building, it is important to remember, an Army of citizens in uniform—a people's Army. We believe the men of this people's Army should have the right of self-expression about their welfare conditions and their grievances. We believe this kind of machinery should exist for complaints and also for positive suggestions; and we submit that the Army and the R.A.F. should follow the example which has already been set by the Senior Service in bringing other ranks into democratic consultation with their officers to improve the conditions of their way of life.

Mr. Mikardo: I intervene in this Debate with very great humility, because I am not by any means an expert in Service matters. I have not the advantage of my hon. Friends who put their names to this new Clause, of great experience in these matters. But I think I can contribute something relevant, from a sector of experience which is different from that of my hon. Friends. We have had reference today to the fact that we are dealing with the present day Army, with a clear understanding of the fact that it is a citizens' Army. Both my hon. Friends who have spoken on this new Clause have mentioned that. The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) also rested an argument on the valid point that what he was saying applied to our present-day Army, because it is composed of a cross-section of the citizens. In this and in related matters, we must have regard to the fact that we have a citizens' Army. Surely the new men coming into the Army will expect, and certainly will hope, to find in it something of the structure and duties and responsibilities of citizenship, outside the Army. They will, clearly, on first going into the Armed Forces, begin to compare the arrangements in the Armed Forces with the arrangements in comparable matters in their civilian life.
Many of these men will have come into the Army or into the Royal Air Force from commercial or industrial institutions in which there has grown up a very firm and continuous practice of joint consultation between managements and men on all matters affecting the welfare and the interests of the workers. Some of them may have come into the Royal Air Force from civilian air bases where they now have, as a result of the passage of the Civil Aviation Act, excellent arrangements whereby the voice of every man of whatever rank at the civil air base can be heard in all matters affecting the welfare of every one at the air base. That man, coming from a civil air base into the Royal Air Force, into a type of life not very different from that which he has left in regard to the work, will naturally ask what is the parallel in the Service for the type of structure which he had in civil air transport, and in which he got a voice, at any rate, in settling all those matters which affected his welfare.
If we have a citizen Army conscious of the privileges of citizenship, the man will not overlook the fact that one of the privileges of citizenship which he has now to a high degree, and which he takes absolutely for granted, is that in his place of work unilateral decisions will not be made by those who manage him about his interests and welfare. Since my hon. Friend the Member for West Wolverhampton (Mr. H. D. Hughes) mentioned the difference in Army welfare in good units and in not so good units, may I say that industrial experience goes to show that it does not matter how good are the material welfare conditions which are offered by managements, they are still resented by the workers if those conditions are decided unilaterally by the managers. The worker on the shop floor will object to good welfare conditions—and, in my view, rightly—just as much as he will object to bad conditions if, however good they are, they have been decided unilaterally and he has had no say in the matter. Many managers have said to me, "I cannot understand why the workers complain about their environmental conditions in my factory; they are the best in the country." My answer always is, "Your workers are not satisfied to have you think you know what is good for them; they want themselves to have a say in what is good for them." Irrespective of how keen the officers in the Service concerned are about welfare conditions—and many of them are very keen and do a great deal of work, thorough, conscientious, and well-meaning—they will still not get real satisfaction from the other ranks as long as the decisions are unilateral.
The point I want to contribute for the consideration of those whose Service experience is infinitely greater than mine is that when this type of joint welfare committee was first set up, there were very many managers who feared—as, no doubt, many officers would fear if this Clause were introduced into the Bill—that while the welfare committees might do good work, they would necessarily involve a lowering of the power of discipline of the managers. There were many who feared that sincerely, and could not see how they could sit in consultation with their men about matters of this sort without losing the power of discipline over them. Experience has shown that, far


from this fear coming into effect in practice, quite the opposite has happened, and that joint consultation has meant, not a weakening of managerial discipline, but a strengthening of it, and that, moreover, this strengthening is greatest where the managers enter into joint consultation in the most open way with their workers. Man management is no different in the Services from what it is in industry. We have recognised that in recent years by applying to the Services the same techniques of industrial psychology and vocational selection and training as we have applied for a long time in industry.

Mr. Bellenger: It is the other way round.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Mikardo: I must correct my right hon. Friend. I agree that when the Army caught up with it, they took it up very rapidly, and in some respects outdistanced industry, but the Army started these techniques 25 years after the first people in industry started them.

Mr. Bellenger: Possibly my hon. Friend, not having had Servicee experience, does not know that this technique was originated in the Armed Forces, not only in this country but elsewhere, well over 30 years ago.

Mr. Mikardo: This is a detail, and I do not want to quarrel with my right hon. Friend, but I have gone into the history of it very closely, and I assure him that he is quite wrong. The first application of these techniques took place in a steel works in 1866. I can give my right hon. Friend chapter and verse for this if he likes, but the point is not a major one, and I will not quarrel with him about it.

Mr. William Shepherd: The hon. Member said that these committees have resulted in an improvement in the managerial function and an improvement in discipline. I understand these committees have developed very largely over the past six years. Is the hon. Member telling us that managerial discipline at the present time is stronger than it was six or seven years ago?

Mr. Mikardo: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, he will see the point I am making. First, it is not true that

this type of consultation has developed only during the last few years.

Mr. Shepherd: It has been intensified.

Mr. Mikardo: In many industries it has been going on for a very long time. The point I am making is that people always work best when they work most happily, and they always work most happily when they understand, not merely what they have to do, but the reason they have to do it. They always work most happily when, if they feel themselves aggrieved, and if, in fact, they are aggrieved, through circumstances over which nobody has any control, that fact can be explained to them. The hon. Member for Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd), who has experience in industry, will know that on many occasions workers run round the shop floor fretting over what they believe to be stupid actions on the part of the management, but when the reason for the actions is explained, they are quite happy. There has to be machinery for the explanation.
I am sure there must be many occasions on which soldiers think that decisions taken by officers with regard to welfare are ridiculous; yet there have been reasons for those decisions which the men would accept, if the reasons could be put to them. Surely, this important technique of man management is no different in the Services from what it is in industry. Therefore, I feel that, in the same way as grievances have often been anticipated in industry, before the scratch has become a festering sore, by an explanation of what was about to happen, in precisely the same way we could get a greater degree of satisfaction in the Services which would help the officers no less than it would help the men. In case it should be felt that this would result in a weakening of discipline, I would point out that all our industrial experience shows that is not true, and that where matters are approached in a most candid and open way, the effect is the opposite. On those grounds, I think I have a right to suggest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that this is a matter which he might take actively into consideration.

Brigadier Head: The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) told us that, in his opinion, there is little or no difference, in regard to man management, between industry and the Army. Whatever view one takes of this new


Clause, it is very important to realise at the outset that there is one essential difference between man management in industry and in the Army. The reason for the Army, and the reason one has a lot of men organised together, is in order that they will remain together and be controllable in moments of extreme fear. That is the object of the whole structure of the Army, and it is something which does not come into industry. That basic conception must be always at the back of our minds when we are considering any suggestion like this.

Mr. Paget: Does the hon. and gallant Gentleman contest the statement that the system works quite well in the Navy?

Brigadier Head: If the hon. Member will let me go on a bit further I shall come to the Navy. When I read the hon. Gentleman's proposal I felt I wanted to say like Doctor Joad, "It all depends upon what the hon. Gentleman means by welfare." The proposal seems to mean that there should be a representative body which can present collective grievance. The hon. Gentleman referred twice to collective representation. Therein lies the main danger in this proposal. However friendly the process is and however good one says it is, the collective grievances system will become very inconvenient when the Service gets into difficulties, under active service. The Navy always goes about with its shell, as it were, on its back. It is always in its ship. On active service, if the ship is sunk, this matter of the collective airing of grievances does not matter very much. Apart from that, more or less reasonable conditions obtain, which do not alter largely. The Navy is going about in its own barracks. On the other hand, the Army, continually, has of necessity very bad conditions. It is my contention that the only way in which to overcome the difficulty which the proposal is designed to meet, is to have in each unit officers who know what is going on.
Quite a good point was made by the hon. Gentleman that in good units, welfare is already looked after. I am suggesting that in bad units this innovation will not help to improve matters. In my opinion, units are bad, not because of the men but because of the officers. There is no such thing as a bad soldier, but there are bad officers. Bad officers, coupled with the

system now proposed would lead to most appalling situations. You would get representatives of the men airing collective grievances which the officers would not know about, and before long the feeling would grow up that the men were to a large extent trying to do the commanding officer's job for him. It might be asked, "Why do we not get those difficulties in the Navy where we already air grievances collectively?" I see a representative of the Navy on the Front Bench opposite me, looking rather smug. I suggest that the Navy is not a parallel case. Anybody who has had much to do with the Navy—I had quite a lot to do with it in the last war—will be aware that the Navy has quite a different form of discipline from that of the Army. Secondly, the Navy has a particular problem, which is to keep a lot of grown men huddled up in close proximity to each other in a boat, and to avoid explosions.
When I say that, the hon. Gentleman looks a little puzzled. He may have another think. The whole principle of the present proposal is to prevent the explosion of grievances by giving them air and to see that grievances in those small, crowded communities are ventilated. In the Army, if this system were restricted to giving ventilation to grievances it might be all very well, but if the men got into the habit of using this system of representing grievances collectively to their officers, precedents would be set up which might give rise to extreme difficulty on active service. The whole foundation of the system of collective representation of grievances would tend to break down at the very moment for which all the organising, training and instituting of the Army had been carried out.
I should like to say a word on this matter of the necessity for a different form of discipline now that we have a citizens' army. The hon. Gentleman reminds me of the series of very illuminating articles which appeared in the "Daily Mirror" in the year 1937, or 1938. Hon. Members may remember the great cry that went up then that we now would have an intelligent Army, and that the old forms of discipline would now be regarded as nonsense. The articles were very strong on this idea, and they advocated the abolition of drill. The whole discipline and spirit of the Army would be much more intellectual. There would be much more bonhomie in the citizens' army,


and everything would be all right. What happened after Dunkirk? Such a cry for drill sergeants from the Guards went up from all the units in the Army that the supply was not sufficient. That kind of experience has been reported from the Russian Army and the American Army, as well as our own Army. When there is a bright and brainy citizens' Army, the cry goes up that discipline is outmoded. I believe that some of the biggest advocates of this citizens' discipline will agree that when everybody is extremely frightened, and does everything instinctively, the chap who has been chivvied around a bit by a dose of good strong discipline, reacts in the way that we want him to react. That is an inevitable part of Army training.

Mr. William Wells: I do not quite understand what the hon. and gallant Member means by citizens' discipline, but will he tell me what conflict there is between maintaining the strictest discipline on the parade ground or the battlefield, and welfare committees in administration?

Brigadier Head: The hon. Gentleman opposite referred to the new Army and said that we were now dealing with a very different problem, that we were now to have a citizens' army and that the whole existing system was outmoded and out of date. I do not think that the system is out moded or out of date. The Army will change, and is changing all the time. It is my belief that if the proposal now made were acceded to, it would mean undertaking a rash and unnecessary experiment which would do no good. Potentially, the system of collective bargaining might well undermine the whole system upon which the Army is based.

Mr. James Callaghan: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say what is the difference between the system in the Navy and the system in the Army? Why would this experiment be such a catastrophe in the Army when it has been so useful in the Navy?

Brigadier Head: The hon. Gentleman was not in the Committee when I dealt with that point. I do not want to weary the Committee by going over it again.

7.30 p.m.

Wing-Commander Shackleton: I do not propose to follow the line taken

by the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head), or to enter into a controversy as to which is the most progressive of the Services. I am afraid that I must put the Air Force point of view. I support the proposed new Clause. The Air Force took the lead in setting up not just welfare committees, but station committees whose job was to consider all aspects of station life. In the orders which were issued, it was made clear that representatives of the men were to have an opportunity to discuss and have explained to them the various station orders. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Air will have an opportunity to make it clear that the only point in which the Navy took the lead was that representatives on their welfare committees were elected. The hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo) pointed out in an analogy how works councils and joint production councils in industry work, and I think it is very desirable that we should make applicable in this case, as I believe they are applicable, practices that are well established in civilian life.
Hon. Members who have experience of committees already existing in the Services, such as the mess committee, would agree, I am sure, that the underlying principle is right. If grievances are real, it is desirable to get the people who have those grievances to have proper representation on the committees. If they are imaginary, it is all the more desirable that those who are making the noise should be brought up to the committee and given the opportunity of shouldering a little responsibility. I hope that the Secretary of State for War will bear in mind a marriage between the proposals of the Navy and those of the Air Force, and that the outcome of that marriage will be adopted by the Army. The Air Force have led in this matter, and I suggest most seriously that the Army should adopt the whole idea of the balloting principle, which has been in operation for so long in the Air Force.

Lord John Hope: May I say first that I think all of us who have had experience of the Service and leadership, however junior, will have sympathy with what was said by the hon. Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) who moved this Clause. But it is clear to all of us that no good officer in any Service would allow a situation to arise which the mover of the Clause envisages. All good officers always see that


grievances are attended to. Bad officers do not and the remedy is to get the bad officers removed and to improve the standard of officers. I believe strongly that leadership of men in peace time, and very much more of course in war time, is the highest test of character which can be found. If we are to carry this Clause to its logical conclusion, we will certainly be lowering the standard of obligation to which an officer must attain if he is to be an officer worth the name. For that reason I believe that it would be wrong to accept the Clause.

Mr. Paget: I feel that Members opposite have got an entirely wrong idea about these committees. I can assure them from the Navy, where we have worked them for years—and it is as good a Force as it always has been—that these committees are not engaged entirely in airing grievances. The amount of time which is spent on grievances and complaints is practically negligible. At a meeting the question of rations may be raised, and the committee debates what it would like best. Then there is the question of sports and sports gear. Occasionally grievances are brought up, discussed and then a remedy is arrived at. In all the committees on which I have sat I have never known of a question taken to a vote. We always reached agreement. I have never known a case in which a grievance was not settled to the satisfaction of everyone. It has been pointed out that this thing is more urgently necessary in the Navy because people are pressed together more. None the less it is urgently needed in the Army and can be adopted to suit the Army. It has worked well in the Navy, and we have had a long experience of it.

Lord John Hope: The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) cannot teach his grandmother the proverbial lesson in that way. He must accept it from those who have had experience in the Army of these things that they have been done in the Army for many years and it is not necessary to have an official committee of this sort to get them done. He is right, these things have got to be done, but they have been done before and if necessary grievances can always be dealt with.

Mr. Paget: Why not provide for them in the same way as provision is made for all other things which are good?

Lord John Hope: I tried to argue that.

Mr. Grimston: I rise to express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War will resist this new Clause for two reasons. First, I think the proposal really postulates the deteriorating standard of officers; and, secondly, I am certain in my own mind that when one comes to examine this new Clause it will undermine discipline. Let me take the first case. Running through the speeches of the mover and supporter of the new Clause was the view that this would not be necessary where there are good officers. It seems to me, therefore, that we are attacking the problem in the wrong way. We are attacking it not by getting the good officers, but by providing the machinery to bolster up the bad officers.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: I think I am speaking for my hon. Friend when I say that our argument was not that the scheme would not be necessary if there were good officers, but rather we thought it advisable to get democratic participation from the other ranks. Our argument, too, was that a good deal of welfare was done under the present system.

Mr. Grimston: What the hon. Member means by democratic co-operation by the other ranks I do not know. On the question of discipline I wish to say a word or two. I believe it is perfectly true that it was the experience of welfare officers during the war that their services were not required in good units except in the exceptional case when an officer brought a case to them. I was under the impression that one of the first things an officer had got to learn was that the welfare of his men was his first charge. If machinery is going to be provided to relieve him of that responsibility I believe that is a retrograde move.
I want to refer now to the thing which was said by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo). He spoke of experience of man management in industry. I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Carshalton (Brigadier Head) that we cannot compare industry and the Army, because, as he has said, the Army has got to operate masses of men who may be under a sense of fear and has got to provide a different sort of management for that than is provided for the civilian living at home under different conditions


and operating in normal everyday life. I do not think that the two things are comparable. Let us look at what we want an Army for. I take it that we want an Army, if necessary, to win battles and to win them with the minimum of casualties. It will be the experience of anybody who has served in either of the wars be it in the Air Force, the Army or the Navy that where we get good discipline there will certainly be fewer casualties. It will also be their experience that where there is a tight corner or a battle to be won the unit which the commander in chief will bring in to deal with the situation is the best disciplined unit he can find. When it comes to this question of discipline I would refer hon. Members to the end of this new Clause where it says:
…to provide for the free discussion of all matters affecting the general welfare of the men in each such unit…
What is meant by "the general welfare of the men"? Let me give an illustration of what I mean. Suppose a commanding officer decides that he will have a parade for physical jerks in the morning. Under this Clause that may very well come under the heading of the general welfare of the men.

Mr. Bing: Just to clear the mind of the hon. Gentleman, may I point out to him, that those words are, of course, a quotation of what was said by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty?

Mr. Grimston: That may well be so, but I am speaking about the words which should go into an Act of Parliament, and I am afraid that whatever the hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty has said would have no weight when those words come to be interpreted after they have been put into an Act of Parliament. As I was saying, general welfare might well cover physical training in the morning or at any other time. An order might be issued to a certain unit that this should take place, and that order could then come up for discussion under the heading of general welfare at one of of these meetings. That leads on to the discussion of orders by troops and the questioning of them and discussion as to whether they are good or not. Nobody will make me believe that that sort of thing is not subversive of discipline in the

unit. I am not looking at the matter from any reactionary point of view, but from the point of view that if one interferes with discipline then when it comes to war and the function for which the Army is really intended—our defence—it will not be such an efficient machine for its job if it has bad discipline. I think that the instance I have given is sufficient to show that under this particular Clause, in circumstances which are bound to arise, discipline would be interfered with.

Mr. Paget: That very question did arise in the Navy. We had an order that everybody on landing craft was to do physical exercise. Many rather elderly petty officers and leading seamen who had been excused physical exercise as over age on other ships objected. They came and talked it over, it was pointed out that this particular job of landing troops required special fitness, and what would otherwise have been a grievance was explained and talked over and willingly accepted.

Mr. Grimston: I am afraid that that instance does not satisfy me at all. That may be. There you had a case in which an order was given—under active service conditions incidentally—and was discussable. I believe that to be wrong in the interests of discipline, although it may have worked out in that particular case.

Mr. Willis: Surely, orders will lye discussed in any case, whether openly or otherwise? The thing is to have satisfactory co-operation and companionship between the officers and men.

Mr. Grimston: I daresay that orders are sometimes discussed, but it is a very different thing to discuss them on this kind of basis. In any case I should say that in a well-disciplined unit they are not discussed. The hon. Member for Reading mentioned the question of explanation, and here I come back to the point that any good officer will explain the reason for things to his men. I heard of a case in the R.A.F. during the war—I will mention no names—where there was trouble because leave boats did not arrive and one commanding officer did nothing about it. Feeling became very bad and the morale of the unit deteriorated considerably. Another officer came along, found that this was the case and summoned the men and explained the reason to them. He said, "The trouble is that we


are not getting the number of leave boats we should. I can tell you what I believe to be the reasons for that, and I assure you that I am pressing the proper authorities and will do all I can to get the leave boats." In this way the matter was settled, but what I am saying is that it should not be necessary to set up this kind of machinery which may undermine discipline. What we have to do is to concentrate on obtaining the right type of officer, and that is the line the Government should pursue instead of producing machinery to bolster up the bad type of officer. It is really chiefly on those grounds, and because of the obvious defect in the drafting and the omission of any definition of welfare that I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will resist this new Clause.

Mr. Mikardo: Since he mentioned what I had said, would the hon. Gentleman reply to one question before he sits down? While it is true that good officers explain to their men when they realise that there is something which is agitating them, is it not a fact that even the best officer, unless he is a seer, cannot always know that something is worrying his men if he has no means of having the fact reported to him? Would it not be of advantage to the officer if the men could tell him what was worrying them instead of his having to guess very often?

Mr. Grimston: I think that if the commanding officer does not know what is going on and what is felt in his unit he had better look round to see whether he ought not to sack some of his junior officers.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Bellenger: I think the manner in which my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall (Mr. W. Wells) moved this new Clause was admirable and restrained. He explained quite fully and clearly that its purpose was to ensure that the welfare of the men was adequately safeguarded as far as was possible with the machinery which he advocates. He also explained that in moving this Clause he had no intention of advocating any slackening of discipline. As he told the Committee he has served in the Army during the war when, on many occasions, as he knows, discipline saved the situation. I have experienced this myself and one does not see it in any better circumstances than

in a retreat. It is easy enough to keep up morale when constantly advancing against the enemy, but another matter in retreat, which, I suggest to the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Mikardo), is not at all comparable with the more or less sheltered factory conditions in which many civilians work. It is difficult enough in retreat to save the situation, and I maintain that a well-disciplined unit shows at its best in those circumstances. But as I say, in moving this new Clause my hon. Friend said that his whole purpose was not to undermine or relax discipline but to ensure that the men's reasonable welfare requirements were properly met. When discussing welfare in relation to a fighting service let me say this. An army has, unfortunately, to fight battles—and this applies equally to the other Services—which are entirely different from the conditions in which factories, with which my hon. Friend has a great deal of experience, have to produce goods.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading said that the joint consultations between management and workers is, on the whole, conducive to a strengthening of discipline. My experience is not as great as his, and I am prepared to accept what he says, with this qualification: Civilians in factories, if they disagree with the management, have one final weapon in their hands under our law, in that they can strike and do strike. That is one of the freedoms inherent in our Constitution, but there can be no such weapon placed in the hands of military forces, because if that were so, we might just as well not have any military forces at all, as they would cease to be a disciplined force ready to encounter the foe, and would become a rabble. If my hon. Friend is right in what he says, he might apply his suggestion not only to the armed forces, but to the police forces and other organised disciplined bodies of men who are prepared to enforce law and order in circumstances which may lead to the use of weapons, as happens amongst armed forces. I say to my hon. Friend who moved this Motion, that I have considerable sympathy with their object. Indeed, before they came to this House I was trying to improve, in my humble way, the welfare of the citizen army, and I think I met with a considerable amount of success,


together with those who fought those battles while the war was raging.
I am not going to decry the motives my hon. Friends have in putting down this new Clause. It has given them an opportunity to express their point of view, and many of these expressions are not dissimilar to what I want in the Army. I cannot accept this new Clause, and it is not necessary for me to do so. There are opportunities for setting up welfare committees, without a Clause of this description being embodied in the Bill. We already have a similar system in mind, and we have sent out instructions to formation commanders that welfare committees shall be set up in units. I am concerned not so much with the shadow as with the substance. In other words, what I want is what the hon. and gallant Member opposite stated, to see that responsibility for welfare, order and discipline is placed on somebody. I do not want to put it on committees, but to place it where it lies, on commanding officers. Commanding officers who neglect to do their duty in this respect will receive short shrift from me. When we talk of commanding officers, we generally think, as one should, in relation to the unit which the commanding officer commands, namely, the battalion in the case of an infantry unit, and the regiment in the case of an artillery unit, and so forth.
To get the best welfare arrangements in any unit, we have to start lower down, and come to the level of sub-units, such as the company in the case of the infantry, and the battery in the case of the artillery. In sub-units we have a much smaller body of men, and a much more intimate relationship between the officers and men, than in the case of a battalion commander who is, to a large extent, unavoidably remote from day-to-day contact with his men. I, therefore, place greater emphasis on the junior officer doing his job. Junior officers have got to keep this close day-to-day contact with their men, and if they are doing their job properly, I am certain—although I have no objection to welfare committees—that the necessity for welfare committees will recede.

Mr. H. D. Hughes: My right hon. Friend has made an important announcement. He has stated that instructions have been sent out to units advocating the formation of welfare committees.

Will he say how these committees are composed, how often they are to meet, whether they are available to other ranks, and so on?

Mr. Bellenger: I should not be surprised if the procedure will differ from unit to unit. I am dealing with the general proposition put by my hon. Friends and I am not concerned so much about details—whether more or less emphasis is placed on keeping minute books, and so forth. I place emphasis on the machinery which is available, through close contact between junior officers and men, or through the welfare committees in regard to which the Adjutant-General has issued these instructions. Sometimes the means to the end may be quite different, but I think it is more important to see what the end is and how to achieve it. Great play has been made by some of my hon. Friends with the conditions in the other two Services. Since I have been at the War Office, I have always tried to get the co-operation of my two right hon. Friends, to see that the three Services march in step. Mention has been made of some procedure which the Navy has or are adopting. I am not so fully conversant with their procedure as I am with that prevailing in the Army. I should like to have an opportunity, the case having been put quite forcibly, to talk this matter over with my two Service colleagues. Conditions vary from Service to Service, and what is applicable in the ships of the Navy may not be applicable or suitable in the case of the Army. Having admitted that I am in sympathy with the object this new Clause sets out to achieve, perhaps my hon. Friend will permit me to discuss the matter with my two Service colleagues, to see whether we can evolve a system which will be every bit as good as the system of the Navy or the Royal Air Force.
My hon. Friend twitted me with what the Navy are doing. I am very jealous of the reputation of the Army, and I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, who fearlessly stood up against his confederates, and said that the Army have, after all, led the way. Although I shall, no doubt, be challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cardiff (Mr. Callaghan), who belongs to the Navy and so often speaks on the Army, I believe that the Army has led the way. However, we are prepared to learn wherever we can and to get information from wherever we can. I was not


fully aware of the arrangements the Navy are adopting, and I will certainly do my best to see that the Army do not lag behind, as some of my hon. Friends seem to suggest in their speeches.
8.0 p.m.
In conclusion, and in defence of my own Service—if I may be permitted to defend it—we in the Army were the first to issue what are still known as "Notice board bulletins." My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, who spoke about consultations between management and labour, may be interested to know that Army Council Instructions, on which are based so many of the rules and regulations which govern the Army, were secret even from Members of the House during the war, and that on more than one occasion I endeavoured to get the Secretary of State to put those Instructions in the Library, so that we could see them. I advocated that he should give a lot of information, which was not secret from the security point of view, to the ordinary rank and file, so that they could know and understand what the Army Council were aiming at. As I say, during the war these notice board bulletins were issued, and they embodied many of the orders and regulations which were incorporated in Army Council Instructions. I think that my hon. Friends have had a very good outing on this new Clause, and I regret that although I cannot accept it I do accept its spirit.

Mr. Willis: When my right hon. Friend consults the First Lord of the Admiralty will be also look into— as this is important in relation to the question of the welfare of the men—the operation of the corresponding representatives of the Royal Naval Benevolent Trust, which does fine work in the Navy in helping to alleviate men's domestic difficulties? Will he also inquire as to the manner in which canteen committees assist men when they are in difficulties, including financial assistance, which, I understand, is at present forbidden by the rules governing the use of Unit Funds?

Mr. Bellenger: Yes.

Mr. James Callaghan: We shall, in due course, proceed to dispose of this Clause, but I should like to offer a few further observations about it. The Secretary of State has made an important announcement tonight. He said that

he has issued instructions in connection with welfare committees. I think it would be unfortunate if we were to let this Clause slip through, without having some more information about the way in which these committees will operate. The Financial Secretary is here; we have not heard from him yet, but no doubt he will be able to give us the information if my right hon. Friend is not able to speak—

The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is now discussing another question altogether.

Mr. Callaghan: With great respect, it is precisely what the new Clause is about. The Minister has said that he accepts the spirit of the new Clause, but not its wording. If we are satisfied about its spirit, we should be delighted to delete the wording.

The Chairman: The details of the instruction as to welfare committees is a matter to be discussed on another occasion, and not now. That is a matter of administration.

Mr. Callaghan: Well, I have other things to say about this Clause. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) told us that if this Clause were passed, it would undermine discipline. That, as he knows, has been the argument in connection with every Army reform in successive years throughout the whole of last century. If he looks up the Debates which took place on the proposal to abolish flogging in the Army, he will see that it was said, categorically and clearly, that it would undermine discipline. If he looks up the Debates which took place on the question of the abolition of the purchase of commissions, in 1870 or 1880, he will see that it was said that it would undermine discipline. There has never yet been a reform, in connection with the Army, on any matter at all, where the critics have not said, "This will undermine discipline." Here, we are not proposing to do such a dreadful thing as to abolish flogging, or the purchase of commissions. All we are asking is that something should be done which is already being done in the Navy, and which the Minister has said he will do in the Army. Here, once again, we have been told from the Front Bench opposite that this will undermine discipline.

Mr. Grimston: In spite of the strictures of the hon. Gentleman, I must retain my opinion. But I would remind him that I also said that in this matter the mistake would be to bolster up the not so good officer. I was glad to hear the Minister say that this should be concentrated on the officer, that he should be the fellow who should have responsibility.

Mr. Callaghan: I think there is a great deal in that point. While the Minister was speaking I was trying to think what we meant by discipline. No doubt that question has been answered many times before, by more competent people than myself, but I hurriedly wrote down my own definition. I suggest that real discipline comprises willing and unquestioned subjection to the orders of those in whom there is complete confidence. The willing and unquestioned subjection of the—

The Chairman: I do not think that question arises on this new Clause.

Mr. Callaghan: I submit that I am in Order. This point was raised on many occasions; it was said that the reason why this Clause should be turned down was that it would undermine discipline.

The Chairman: I fully agree, but that does not entitle the hon. Member to enter into a discussion of what does or does not constitute discipline.

Mr. Callaghan: I submit that if we are to say whether something does or does not undermine discipline we must be clear as to what discipline is. I put up my own definition, and from it I want to say that if that is a workable definition for this purpose—that discipline is willing and unquestioned subjection to the orders of those in whom there is complete confidence—I see no reason why the introduction of welfare committees should do anything to lessen that confidence.

Mr. Grimston: I would not quite accept that definition of discipline. I would not like my silence to suggest otherwise.

Mr. Callaghan: I can understand that, but I want to put this point to the hon. Member. When he says that these committees may be the means of bolstering up the inefficient officer, would they not also be the means of exposing such an officer? Would they not also be the means of revealing that a man has not the capacity

for real discipline in his unit? My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary believes that the leadership of men, and not the driving of men, is what must be done to get their following. The Minister has made this important announcement tonight. We do not necessarily want to incorporate the wording in the Bill if he accepts the spirit of the Clause. I think it is a great pity that he did not go into further detail, and tell us more as to how these committees are to be worked. No doubt he will take an early opportunity, in response to Questions, to give us that information. We should be very happy indeed to have it.
In those circumstances, as we cannot go into those details, I will conclude by saying that announcements of such a magnitude as this, and of such vital importance, could be made, perhaps on rather more appropriate occasions when we could discuss them in some detail. If we were able to discuss their procedure and method of setting up, it would be a great advantage to this Committee. However, we cannot discuss that, and we must leave it, but we can content ourselves by knowing that, thanks to putting down this Clause today, we have learned of the existence of this order which has been sent out. That is an advance, because it is doubtful whether we should have known about it otherwise. In those circumstances, we shall be able, on other occasions later on, to press for further information as to how it is being operated.

Mr. W. Wells: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the proposed new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of Army Act, Section 48.)

At the end of paragraph (3) of section forty-eight of the Army Act (which relates to general and district courts-martial) there shall be inserted the following words:
And the members of a court martial for the trial of an officer shall be of an equal, if not superior, rank unless in the opinion of the convening officer, to be stated in the order convening the court and to be conclusive, officers of that rank are not available."—[Sir W. Allen.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir William Allen: I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
It may seem impertinence on my part to suggest any amendment to War Office


regulations. However, I make no apology for doing so, because we in Ulster have contributed our share towards the protection of the great British nation during the last war and in other wars. For many years we have provided men, women and munitions, and, when they were required, the British Army would accept field marshals by the half dozen from Ulster.
We have had given to us what is commonly known in the Army as the "Manual of Military Law," and in that manual are the Army Act and rules of procedure. I want to confine myself entirely to the instructions concerning courts-martial in the cases of the Army Act and of the rules of procedure. The intention of the proposed new Clause which I am moving is to make both the Army Act and rules of procedure agree. At the moment they do not agree. In the course of my remarks I will show that various judge advocates general and the War Office are in agreement with what I suggest; not only that, but previous Secretaries of State for War have agreed that there is difference and disagreement between the Army Act and the rules of procedure. Should my new Clause be accepted, Section 48 (3) will then read:
A general court-martial shall consist of not less than five officers, each of whom must have held a commission during not less than three whole years, and of whom not less than four must be of a rank not below that of captain.
Then follow the words which I wish to add:
And the members of a court-martial for the trial of an officer shall be of an equal, if not superior, rank unless in the opinion of the convening officer, to be stated in the order convening the court and to be conclusive, officers of that rank are not available.
The language that is used there is taken directly from the rules of procedure. I would like to make a strong plea to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, who, I am sorry to see, is not here. I daresay he has left instructions of some kind with his representative on the Front Bench, but I would much prefer that he should have been present because this is a very serious matter. What those instructions are, I have yet to learn.
8.15 p.m.
I would like to illustrate my point about the disagreement between the Army Act

and the rules of procedure. A court-martial is convened. The president sits on the court-martial with four other officers. There is a prosecutor called the judge advocate. There is the accused and his defending friend who may be a very learned gentleman belonging to the law. When the court opens, the friend of the accused brings to the notice of the president that there are two officers of the rank of captain, and he reads from page 360 of the rules of procedure in the "Manual of Military Law" as follows:
The members of a court-martial for the trial of an officer shall be of an equal, if not superior, rank to that officer.
The friend of the accused asks for a reconvening of the court in accordance with that rule of procedure. May I emphasise the fact that that rule of procedure means that the court must be convened in accordance with that rule, which is that the officers must be of an equal, if not superior, rank to the accused? That having been done, the president replies that he has been advised that the court has been properly convened according to the Army Act, and decides that the trial must proceed. The friend of the accused then lodges a protest with the president of the court-martial and asks that that protest may be forwarded with the proceedings to higher authority, the result of which is that the trial proceeds. The accused officer, who may be a major, is then tried, and two or three of the officers on the court-martial may be of a lower rank than the major. The accused may be found guilty, and sentence promulgated, to the effect that the accused major be dismissed the Service. The proceedings may then be passed on to the general officer in command of the district, who may confirm the finding of that court.
Finally the proceedings reach the Army Council. Naturally, the latter seek the advice of the Judge Advocate General, and a crucial period in the life of the accused officer and his honour as an officer hang on the advice given by the Judge Advocate General to the Army Council. He may be disgraced for life, or a new trial may be ordered in accordances with the rules of procedure. I want to produce evidence which will prove that previous Secretaries of State for War have had knowledge that there is a disagreement between the Army Act and the rules of procedure, and I will read some letters to demonstrate that.

Mr. John Freeman: indicated dissent.

Sir W. Allen: The hon. Gentleman the Financial Secretary to the War Office need not shake his head. Not only have the Secretaries of State for War agreed that there is a disagreement, but several Judge Advocates General have already stated that there is disagreement. It is for that reason that I suggest the Committee should take this matter into serious consideration. The first letter I wish to quote is dated January, 1936, and states:
The Army Act itself contains no provision which requires that the rank of a member of the court should be equal, if not superior, to that of the accused.
That letter was signed by Mr. Duff Cooper. That is a statement made by a previous Secretary of State for War on the advice of the then Judge Advocate General. The next letter I wish to quote is dated 27th April, 1938, and states:
There is no provision in the Army Act which requires that the rank of a member of the court must be equal, if not superior, to that of the accused. Indeed, it is clear that as many as four captains can be members of a court-martial for the trial of a major, while four majors can legally be members of a court-martial for the trial of a lieutenant-colonel, or even of a general.
That letter is signed by Mr. Hore-Belisha, who wrote it on the advice of the then Judge Advocate General.
I think the illustration I have given shows very clearly that an officer who is responsible for the convening of courts-martial is at a loss to know whether he should do so according to the Army Act or according to the rules of procedure. I have already stated what the rules of procedure state, namely, that the members of the court must be of equal rank. But the Army Act says, "No;" and, according to the Judge Advocate General, the Army Act must overrule the rules of procedure. I think I have already produced sufficient argument in support of this proposed new Clause. There is a distinct divergence between the Army Act and the rules of procedure. Why have rules of procedure if they are not to be obeyed? Why have rules of procedure which are in conflict with the Army Act? I suggest to the Financial Secretary that this matter should be seriously considered by the authorities concerned. There is no doubt in my mind, there is no doubt in the minds of the Judge Advocates General, and there is no doubt in the minds of previous Secretaries of State for War, that there is a divergence

of opinion arising out of the actual words of the Army Act and of the rules of procedure. Why cannot they be assimilated? Would it not be a simple matter to have that done? I have suggested in the proposed new Clause that the rules of procedure shall be brought into the Army Act. But I do not mind whether the Army Act agrees with the rules of procedure, or the rules of procedure with the Army Act. It is for the War Office to decide what is the best thing to do, but there should be some agreement between the Army Act and the rules of procedure.
I have stated that Judge Advocates General have said that the Army Act, as such, overrules the rules of procedure. But there are as eminent lawyers who take the contrary view. What I am surprised at is, that year after year the Army Act and the rules of procedure have been allowed to pass this Committee, and difficulties put in the way of convening officers. The Army Act permits the Army Council to overrule the rules of procedure. In the case that I mentioned, the officer, being judged by the Army Council under direction of the Judge Advocate General, is dismissed and disgraced for ever. Let us look at this in a common sense way. I appeal to the Financial Secretary, who is to reply on behalf of the War Office, even if this proposed new Clause is not accepted, at least to take it into consideration, and to bring it before those who are responsible for the Army Act and for the rules of procedure. In my opinion, I have made it plain that there is disagreement between the Army Act and the rules of procedure; and it is high time that something was done to make them satisfactory in relation to each other.

The Financial Secretary to the War Office (Mr. John Freeman): The hon. and gallant Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) began by apologising to the Committee for moving a new Clause as a representative from Northern Ireland. I should like to assure him that he had no need to make such an apology; and I should like further to assure him, as I hope to show during the course of my remarks, that we have for a long period of years given very close attention indeed to the arguments which he has just adduced to the Committee. I will seek to show him—although I concede that it is a complicated matter—that he is on the wrong track here, and that the injustice which he believes to be taking place is not, in fact, taking place. The


hon. and gallant Member based his case on the suggestion that Section 48, coupled with Section 70, of the Army Act is at variance with the Rule of Procedure 21 (B), which he quoted to the Committee. He has quoted, not only an imaginary case to give an instance of how that variation might affect the course of a trial, but also letters written by successive Secretaries of State, on advice rendered to them by the Judge Advocate General, which the hon. and gallant Member alleges he can fairly call in aid. I have to tell him that in our view he, with the best will in the world, is wrong in this matter. He made some point, I thought, in talking about the advice which was given to Mr. Duff Cooper and to Mr. Hore-Belisha by the, then Judge Advocate General. The Judge Advocate General has not changed since that advice was given, and he fully endorses the remarks I am about to make this evening. He does not admit—indeed, he would very strongly resent—the suggestion that there is—

8.30 p.m.

Earl Winterton: The hon. Gentleman realises, of course, that it is quite unusual to quote a distinguished member of the Services or of the Civil Service—I say this in the most friendly way—in support of a Minister's statement. A Minister is absolutely responsible for the statements he makes.

Mr. Freeman: I stand corrected, and I beg the pardon of the Committee. I was led aside by the remarks the hon. and gallant Gentleman made. I wish to make it perfectly plain that my right hon. Friend and I are entirely responsible for what I am saying. But the point has been brought out that we are in some way at variance with the Judge Advocate in this matter, and he quoted from letters purporting to show the Judge Advocate's opinion. I am entitled, in passing—I want to put no further emphasis on the point—to point out that that is not, in fact, true.
Section 48 of the Army Act lays down how a court-martial should be constituted, and Section 70 of the Army Act goes on to lay down that the King, through the Secretary of State, may issue rules of procedure from time to time which shall be the subject of judicial notice, provided they are not inconsistent with any of the Sections of the Army Act. That is to

say, that the rules of procedure published under Section 70 of the Army Act have, in fact, the virtual force of law.

Sir W. Allen: The rules of procedure have the force of law? Is that what the hon. Gentleman said?

Mr. Freeman: No. What I said was—if I may expand this a little further—that the rules of procedure published in accordance with Section 70 are subject to judicial notice, and are, therefore, virtually tantamount to statutory provisions. They are not exactly the same as law, but they must be taken into account by the court. It was urged that, in the imaginary case that the hon. and gallant Gentleman quoted, the rule of procedure had been broken, not that the Army Act had been broken. When he drew attention to this matter, in long correspondence which he has had with successive Secretaries of State, the point was made by one of my right hon. Friend's predecessors that Rule 21 (b) could not, in fact, be effective because—and I think, in fact, I am quoting accurately from the letter which he received at that time—because, in strictly legal terms, it was inconsistent with Section 48. The word used was "inconsistent." It was not alleged that it contradicted it, or was necessarily at variance with it.
I am anxious to explain to the Committee exactly what the force of that is. Section 48 lays down a certain establishment for a court-martial. The Rule 21 (b) of the rules of procedure limits that; it defines it more closely and limits it. I am advised that, in those circumstances, 21 (b) is not sufficiently inconsistent that it could not be regarded as one of those rules of procedure to be published under Section 70 which has to be treated as a rule of procedure rating judicial notice. But, of course, the Secretary of State is empowered to publish rules of procedure, which are directions to the officers concerned at any time. In this case the position is that the Army Act lays down, in Section 48, a certain statutory minimum, may I say, for the composition of a court-martial. My right hon. Friend and his predecessors have said, "However, by a directory rule of procedure, we propose to give further benefit to the defendant than is contained in the Army Act, and we do it by means of Rule 21 (b)."

Sir W. Allen: The Army Act cancels it out?

Mr. Freeman: No. The Army Act does not cancel it out. I am trying to make this case, which is difficult, as lucidly as I can. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman will read, if I may say so, my remarks in the morning, I believe he will find that nothing I have said suggests that Section 48 does, in fact, cancel that out. We have been asked by the hon. and gallant Gentleman to give very serious consideration to his suggestion. I do want to say that, when I saw that he had put this new Clause down on the Order Paper, I took a good deal of trouble to find out the background of it, and to go into the whole of the very lengthy correspondence that he has had with successive Secretaries of State for War stretching now, I think I am right in saying, over some 13 years. He has pursued this case with tenacity. On the point of law he has raised I am advised—and I must ask the Committee to agree with me—that he is wrong.
But there does remain a further point. He has put down this new Clause and he may say, "Rightly or wrongly, we will not argue the point of inconsistency, but would it not be desirable, if we have a directory rule of procedure, which we have in 21 (b), to incorporate that in the Army Act? "I think that is the point he has quite fairly put which should be answered. My right hon. Friend and I have thought carefully about this, and have consulted with the Secretary of State for Air, and we believe that such a new Clause should not be accepted at the present moment. To begin with, it does not really achieve anything that we are not doing at the present moment in Rule 21 (b). If the hon. and gallant Gentleman says, "If you are doing it at the moment, anyway, why are you not prepared to accept the new Clause? "the answer is, that it is very often a satisfactory and practical way of doing things to do them by rule, but not to be statutorily bound to do them. In fact, we should be uncomfortable—and I am not at all satisfied that it would be in the interests of justice—if we were statutorily bound by the terms of Rule 21 (b). It would bring us up against certain cases where, with the best will in the world, we simply could not, on account of the exigencies of the Service,

meet the demands of that rule of procedure.
In general terms I would ask the Committee to agree that, while there may be many reforms which would be welcome in the military law, it is not going in the right direction of reform merely to pass a lot of rather niggardly legislation, which will leave in the future, further loopholes by which people can wriggle out of convictions. What we want is to get procedure in courts-martial which is so obviously just, that correct verdicts are given, and reasonable sentences passed. We do not want to multiply the occasions where officers and soldiers, obviously guilty, can find technicalities on which to wriggle out of convictions which would otherwise be just. For that reason, if for no other, I should not be prepared to recommend my hon. Friends to accept the new Clause tonight.
However, there is one further point. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman knows, the Lewis Committee is at present sitting, and it is reviewing, in the widest possible terms, and with very great authority, the whole field of military discipline and military law. I have expressed an opinion which is the opinion of His Majesty's Government, and which is based, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman will realise, to some extent on a matter of taste. I have said, in effect, that the sky would not fall if we accepted this new Clause, but that, on balance we believe it to be undesirable. If he thinks that that is an unreasonable thing to say, it is open to him to bring this matter to the attention of the Lewis Committee. We should be more than willing to consider whatever recommendations they think fit to make. But, particularly at the moment when the Lewis Committee is sitting, I certainly should not be prepared to accept a new Clause which would, in fact, make a substantial change, and one which we believe would not be for the better. I hope that, as I have given what I believe to be a full explanation, the hon. and gallant Gentleman will consent to withdraw this new Clause. He has, I know, put up a battle over the last 13 years which has aroused my considerable admiration, but I think he would serve his own case best if, having brought the matter up tonight, he would now allow it to rest.

Mr. Gallacher: I cannot support this new Clause, although I dare-


say I could have supported it if the provision about "equal and superior ranks," were to apply to the ordinary soldier, as well as to officers. In any discussion of this kind, it is always to be noticed that the officers are to be treated differently from the men. I know that if I were a rank and file soldier, who had committed an offence, and I appeared before a court-martial on which the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) sat, I would be sentenced to be shot at dawn, or to penal servitude for life, and, if the court was in charge of the hon. Member for Mile End (Mr. Piratin) I would get off as free as air. I suggest that, when an hon. Member seeks to put forward a new Clause of this kind, he should put a real principle into it, and ensure that not only officers, but the men who matter, the rank and file, get an opportunity of being tried by their peers, when they have committed an offence.

Earl Winterton: I think my hon. and gallant Friend would be well advised to accept the excellent advice given to him by the Financial Secretary. There is this Committee which is now sitting, and which will go into the whole question of court-martial law. Although it would be out of Order to do more than hint at a suggestion now, I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Churchill) or the right hon. Member for Warwick and Learning-ton (Mr. Eden) should ask for a date on which the discuss the whole question of court-martial law when that Committee reports. I am quite sure the hon. Gentleman opposite who has just spoken only said it as a joke, but I should regard it as most injurious if that sort of thing were said by one colleague in this House against another—[Laughter.] I see nothing funny in what I am going to say. I regard nothing as more wounding than for one hon. Member to say about another—I am sure he said it as a joke—that he would be so disreputable and had so little sense of human justice that he would condemn a person, regardless of whether that person was guilty or not. I would like to have the assurance of the hon. Member that what he said was said as a joke.

Mr. Gallacher: May I say that I am quite sure that, if I were brought before a court-martial, of which the noble Lord was the director, I should be guilty?

Earl Winterton: I do not want to pursue this subject or to get angry with the hon. Member. As to what he has just said, we all know what he is. Nobody in this House takes him seriously, and it would be very foolish for me to do so. I think my hon. and gallant Friend who moved the Clause would be well advised to accept the advice or the Financial Secretary, but I would like to add that, when this Committee reports, an announcement should be made to the House.

Sir W. Allen: I should apologise to the the Secretary of State for War and to the Financial Secretary for giving so little notice of this new Clause, but I only knew on Monday that this Bill was to be discussed today. While not agreeing at all with what the Financial Secretary has said, I think I shall be well advised to ask leave to withdraw the Clause, and to take the opportunity later on of putting the whole matter before the Committee. I cast no aspersions whatever on courts-martial. I believe they are friendly, sympathetic and human. The real question is that of the disagreement between the Army Act and the rules of procedure. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new Clause.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Preamble agreed to.

Bill reported, without Amendment; read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — FORESTRY BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Major MILNER in the Chair]

CLAUSE 1.—(Forestry dedication covenants and enforcement thereof.)

8.45 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11 to leave out from "dispute," to "be," in line 12, and to insert:
in accordance with a determination by the arbitration of an arbitrator appointed in default of agreement by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
This is a very different topic from the one which the Committee has recently been discussing. What this Clause does is to give a definition of a forestry dedication covenant, and it points out that a


covenant is entered into with the Commissioners to the effect that land which has been covenanted shall not be used otherwise than for the growing of timber. That is the purpose of the covenant, but it makes the exception that this covenant can be avoided with the previous consent in writing of the Commissioners, or, if there is a dispute between the Commissioners and the covenanter, under the direction of the Minister of Agriculture.
The point of the Amendment is concerned with that difference of opinion, and with what should happen in case there is a dispute. The Clause says, first of all, that the Commissioners must give their consent in writing, but, if there is a dispute, the Minister of Agriculture gives a direction as to what should be done. Hon. Members may ask in what circumstances might it occur that the person who had signed the covenant with the Commissioners might wish to have it altered. It is possible for people to change their minds, for good reasons, from the point of view of estate management. The owner who dedicated might change his mind, or the successor to the owner, or whoever succeeds to the property, might also change his mind and have the covenant altered. He may put it to the Commissioners, but in the event of their disagreement, what happens? As the Clause stands, it is the Minister of Agriculture who will act, and, although we hope the Minister will look at it kindly, it is, of course, in the existing law that the Forestry Commissioners are bound by the instructions which they receive from the Minister.
That is laid down in the Forestry Act of 1945. It is possible, therefore—1 do not put it any higher than that—that when the Commissioners refuse to give their consent in the first instance, they may be acting under some general direction which they have derived from the Minister of Agriculture. Then, having refused a dispute arises, and it comes back to the Minister of Agriculture to settle. But it may well be that the matter has been prejudged in the first instance, because the Commissioners may have been acting under instructions from the Minister before anything occurred at all.
That, to put it mildly, is rather awkward. It is true that, under the dual responsibilities of the agricultural Ministers

under the law which was passed very recently, the Minister of Agriculture is not only responsible for the Forestry Commission, but is also responsible, of course, for agriculture, and is supposed to try to keep the balance, and it was decided that he was the best person to keep the balance between those two possible conflicting interests. But, in a matter of dispute of this kind, it is important that there should be no risk of anyone saying that the Minister has a bias, and it is just because of the awkwardness of his being responsible for the Forestry Commission anyhow, that he then comes in, so to speak, as an arbitrator, if there is a dispute between them, that we have looked round to see whether it is not possible to think of some other form of arbitration in the case of a dispute. I hope that I have not laboured the point too much, but I wanted to make it clear. The Amendment comes down to the suggestion that an arbitrator should be appointed, in default of agreement, by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
If anybody asks me why that body rather than any other has been chosen, the answer is that we are merely following the precedent of the Act of 1919. Though it was for different purposes—the idea of a covenant was not in that Act; that is a novelty of this Bill—under that Act, and during all the years that it has continued, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has been used for the purpose of finding an arbitrator when there has been a dispute between an owner and the Forestry Commission. The Act of 1919 seemed to be a good enough precedent for this purpose, and, for that reason, this Institution was the choice made by my hon. Friends with regard to the possibility of an arbitrator if the matter could not be settled by agreement. I hope that the Minister will find it possible to accept the Amendment, because it is really a protection for himself. It will avoid any possibility in the future of anyone saying that he was biased in a matter of this kind, and will remove the settlement of a dispute completely away from the Minister who might—I do not say he necessarily would—have had something to do with it at an earlier stage.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): As one would expect from the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank),


he puts his case so kindly, and almost generously, that one feels, despite one's better judgment, that one ought to accept it there and then. Unfortunately, however, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his hon. Friends seem to me not to be too optimistic about the result of this Amendment. Clause 3 is identical with Clause 1, but there is no parallel Amendment to Clause 3. Therefore, if I were to accept this Amendment, there would be no corresponding Amendment to Clause 3, and, while we should be obliged to go to arbitration in any such cases as those quoted by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, in Scotland the Secretary of State would be the arbitrator.

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Surely, if Clause 1 were amended, a similar Amendment to Clause 3 would be consequential?

Mr. Williams: As there happens to be no similar Amendment on the Order Paper, it could not be consequential.

Captain Crookshank: There is another stage.

Mr. Williams: I only mention that in passing. When this Clause was discussed in another place, it was urged upon the noble Lords that the Forestry Commission were apt to become one-track minded, and that it should not, therefore, be left with the Forestry Commissioners to settle any case of dispute between the Commission and the woodland owner, whether or not land hitherto dedicated should be diverted to other uses. The very words which this Amendment sets out to delete were actually inserted in the Bill in another place, to meet the very objection made in that place. Lands having been dedicated, the question of diversion to other user obviously is a matter of policy. It might even be 20 or 30 years after the dedication scheme was entered into before any proposition was made to alter the user of that particular land, and it might be a matter of high policy whether or not a change of user could take place. Indeed, it might involve a whole series of considerations. This is the reason which I want to bring to the notice of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman for having to resist his Amendment.
If there is a proposition for a change of user, it may involve, I repeat, a whole number of considerations, including, for

instance, a consideration that would have to be dealt with by the Minister of Town and Country Planning. It may involve considerations that would have to be dealt with by the Minister of Agriculture, questions that were wholly unsuitable for an arbitrator to decide. In fact, in another place, the sort of case that was instanced was that, where an area of land was dedicated, and where, later on, the owner desired to change the user, for instance, to plant an orchard, then quite obviously, the Minister of Agriculture would be the person chiefly concerned with the proposed change of user, and, clearly, he would be the person to reach the decision on a matter of policy of that kind, and not an arbitrator. Therefore, I am sure that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see that, while theoretically there is something in the point which he makes, the question of user, many years after the dedication scheme was entered into, would not be a matter for an arbitrator to decide, but one for the Minister who happened to be responsible for the use to which the land might be put. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman will see the substance of my case, and will not press the Amendment to a Division.

9.0 p.m.

Colonel Ropner: I hope that the Minister is not relying on my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank) and those associated with him agreeing to his suggestion that this Amendment would serve no useful purpose because there is no similar Amendment to Clause 3 There are many gallant Scotsmen on this side of the Committee who would certainly take an early opportunity of submitting a manuscript Amendment, were he able, as I still hope he will be, to change his mind and accept this Amendment. What this Amendment seeks to do is to make arrangements which are fair to both parties, namely, the land owner and the Forestry Commission, in case of dispute after the deed of covenant for dedication has been entered into.
The Committee must bear in mind two important considerations when determining the merits of the Amendment. First of all, I would ask the Minister to appreciate rather more fully than he has so far done that a dedication covenant is not terminable by the mere passage of


time but lasts for ever. It is, therefore, very important and a very serious matter both for the landowner and also for the Forestry Commission. If we, as we must, think in terms not of months or even of a few years, but of decades—one might even say centuries—the Minister must admit that conditions may become entirely changed. It may be right and proper that a certain parcel of land should be dedicated today or tomorrow or at some near date for the purpose of growing trees. But it may well be that at some more distant date the land could be used for a much better purpose; better in the sense that it would have been more profitable to the landowner and better in the sense that it would be better for the nation.
Secondly, I would ask the Committee to bear in mind that the two parties to these covenants are the landowner and the Forestry Commission, but the Forestry Commission itself is, to all intents and purposes, a department of the Ministry of Agriculture. Therefore, I do not think the power given under the Clause as it stands to the Minister of Agriculture can really be of much satisfaction to those of us who are suggesting this Amendment. The Minister of Agriculture himself is really one of the contracting parties.
I am not very sure that by giving examples of what may happen at some date in the future we strengthen our argument, but I will, nevertheless, try by giving one. It may well be that a piece of land is considered by both the owner and the Forestry Commission to be fully suitable for dedication now, and a dedication covenant may consequently be entered into. On this piece of land it has been decided that trees will grow and that it is an economic proposition to continue to grow trees on it. But, suppose that after the passage of time it is found that the trees do not grow and that both the landowner and the Forestry Commission were wrong in the judgment they made when they thought that the trees would reach maturity on that particular site. I suggest to the Minister that in circumstances such as these the landowner may find himself compelled by the Forestry Commission to continue wasting his own money and the resources of the nation by uselessly devoting to that land further efforts to grow trees.
I would like to say that I am second to none in the tribute which I pay to the ability of the Forestry Commission. That compliment is not prompted by the fact that I was a Forestry Commissioner myself, but while serving in that capacity I had the great pleasure of learning of the great knowledge and ability displayed by the Forestry Commission, not only by the chairman himself, but also by all who served on the Commission giving advice from their knowledge and in their work in an executive capacity. Trees have been made to grow in sand dunes and in waste moorland where only a few years ago no one thought they could grow, but there are still some who believe that those many thousands of acres now producing spruce in the Border country may be rendered derelict wastes after a high wind in a few years' time, when the trees are reaching maturity. I hope I have not confused my argument by endeavouring to give an example. There are hon. Members on both sides who could give other examples of what may go wrong in future during the course of operation of dedication scheme. We know that Government Departments always dislike admitting that they have made a mistake, and Government Departments are very reluctant to give up land over which they have got some measure of control. I conclude by saying that I think there is a real case for arbitration where genuine differences of opinion do arise between the contracting parties, and I think it is wrong that only one of the two contracting parties should forever be given the option of terminating the contract.

Mr. Vane: I was very disappointed to hear the Minister dismiss this Amendment as he did. Obviously, we all agree that dedication is part of a long-term policy, and it should not be easy to slip out of one's dedication obligations whenever one feels like it, but we consider that there are a number of cases which can arise where a difference of opinion may crop up between the private woodland owner and the Forestry Commission. The Minister said that the issues would always affect town and country planning, and that, therefore, they would be on Ministerial level, but I can think of other cases. There might be, for instance, a case of opencast coal-mining or of cutting timber and uprooting


a wood to give greater clearance for a landing ground. I know of a case near my home where that has arisen. In all these cases I do not think the Minister, with the best will in the world, would be the best judge. The right hon. Gentleman said it was strange that we should be moving to delete certain words which have been inserted in another place to meet the wishes of certain noble Lords. I think it would be more correct to say that the words met them in part, because I am sure they were not fully satisfied by those words. If the Minister wants the scheme to be a success, he would be wise to accept the Amendment, because it would give far greater encouragement to private owners, if there were cases of dispute, to know that the people who would sit in judgment could in no case be considered to be an interested party.

Mr. York: The alteration in the use of land is acknowledged to be necessary from time to time. If in every case the Forestry Commission are to have to give their consent, except where objection is taken by the owner, we shall then get the position that the Forestry Com, mission will refuse consent and after the owner has referred the matter to the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Agriculture will come back to the Forestry Commission with advice as to the decision to be given. That does not seem to me to be a reasonable way of dealing with this matter. What is the Minister frightened about in arbitration? Do I understand that he is not frightened of arbitration? If he is not and if the forest owners have asked—as indeed they have asked—for arbitration on their disagreement with the Forestry Commission, why will Le not give it? If the demand is unreasonable and if the land obviously should remain for growing timber, an arbitrator of the type who would be appointed would not make a decision contrary to the evidence offered.
It should also be remembered that the Forestry Commission will be a party to the arbitration. They are the servants of the Minister. If the Minister has any point to make which involves high policy, or any other policy for that matter, high or low, it is surely his duty so to brief his servants that they put the right case before the arbitrator. The arbitrator will not distrust an important piece of evidence offered by one of the parties that

the land should be used for that purpose because of high policy. I have read through the Debate which took place in another place, and I cannot see that any concession has been offered by the Government. They have altered the wording but they have not altered the sense, or the effect upon the owners of property. I am sorry that the Minister has advanced no adequate reason why these matters should not be taken to arbitration. I am disappointed that he should be so stubborn about a matter which we think is reasonable and a matter of common justice.

Colonel Clarke: I want to intervene for only a minute. I thought the Minister's answer was extremely unconvincing. He talked of high policy and suchlike considerations, but the only example he gave was a vague reference to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning. Surely, when the present Town and County Planning Bill is passed there will not be one acre of land in the country in which the Minister will not be interested. In most cases where arbitration would be asked for under our proposal the consideration would be on a much lower level than that of the Minister. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the case in which it was wished to change the user of land because the trees would not grow, or because of disease, or lack of drainage, or unsuitable soil. Those are matters which are not at all on the Ministerial level. I ask the Minister why, in the Agriculture Bill in similar circumstances there is an appeal to a tribunal, whereas in this case he wishes to keep the powers to say the last word in his own hands? In one case he thinks it fair to submit a matter to a tribunal. In the other case it is not, although the two cases seem to be very much the same.

Mr. M. Philips Price: I hope that the Minister will not give way on this matter. This is not a legal question but a question of forestry work on which experts, both private and public, may have different views. It might possibly be a case for getting advice. When the Agriculture Bill was being discussed the other day I myself moved an Amendment to the effect that where there was a difference of opinion between the agricultural interests, which generally are the farmers, and the Ministry of Agriculture, it should be referred to a committee not


for arbitration, but for advice. The Minister would not accept that and I think he made a mistake. This proposal goes further in that it asks for arbitration. This would tie the hands of the Minister on a matter of fact. It is not a question of law at all. I hope the Minister will oppose it as it is an unnecessary complication in a Clause which is quite straightforward.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: If only to prevent a charge of lack of courtesy I must reply to one or two questions put by the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner). He referred to the possibility of land being used for woodland and then it was ultimately found that it was unsuitable for growing trees. The desire was, therefore, for a change to save wasting money on land which was no use for tree growing. Obviously, if one thinks in terms of a reasonably minded Commission, once the land has proved to be unsuitable for growing trees, they would give the appropriate consent. Assuming the Commission were unreasonable in such a case, then we have to assume that the Minister would be a reasonable person and he would insist on the landowner not wasting any more money on land which was not growing timber properly.

Mr. York: Where does the advice come from?

Mr. Williams: There are various means of acquiring advice, and in all these things, as the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) well knows, the owner has always access to the Minister as a last resort to present the best case he can. I am sure he will find ways and means to present the Minister with his case very fully and efficiently.

Mr. York: But the Minister misses my point. I asked the Minister where his advice comes from whether the land is or is not suitable for the continuation of the growing of trees.

Mr. Williams: It would depend on the use to which the landowner now proposes to put the land.

Mr. York: No.

Mr. Williams: If, for instance, a landowner proposed, as I quoted before, to

turn land into an orchard, then I should not need an arbitrator to decide that issue. The advice would come from a horticulturist as to the suitability of the land for that purpose. The second point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash was that if a proposal appeared to be in the national interest, then, clearly, there ought to be an opportunity of changing the user. Quite clearly, if the Commission can be satisfied that to change user was in the national interest, I should hope they would give consent. But if the Commission failed to give consent in such a case it seems clear to me that any reasonably minded Minister, once he knew the facts, would always decide in the national interest and not in the interest of trees merely because they were trees. The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) rather strengthened my case when he quoted the case of opencast coal. If a dispute arose between a woodland owner and the Commission whether a change of user should take place to provide opencast coal, that would instantly bring in another Government Department, and would involve a question of high policy upon which an arbitrator had not the right to decide. Therefore I am resisting this Amendment because I feel that it would be wrong for the Government to abrogate their functions and to allow an arbitrator to decide on matters of national policy, and I hope that hon. Members will see the reasons for this.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 5.—(Restriction on compulsory acquisition of certain land, 8 & 9 Geo. 5. c. 35.)

The Chairman: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if the two Amendments to this Clause are discussed together.

Mr. Vane: I beg to move, in page 4, line 8, at the end, to insert:
or of land as to which no such covenant or agreement is in force but which is being used and managed in accordance with the rules or practice of good forestry.
Clause 5 has one great merit in that it allows for arbitration by an independent arbitrator and in view of this I feel a little diffident about proposing any Amendment. There is, however, one small way


in which we think it can be greatly improved and we hope the Minister will accept our view. The Clause is described as restricting the compulsory acquisition of certain land. The words which we suggest should be added amount to a very slight tightening of that restriction but at the same time they would lead to a very wide extension of common justice. As the Committee will remember, the Government's forestry policy originally allowed two courses. One entered compulsorily into a dedication covenant or else exposed oneself to the risk of having one's woods acquired by the State. The word voluntary was used but in rather an unusual sense. Later on we were given a third alternative between these two courses, and the Minister made it quite clear in the Second Reading Debate when he said:
I think it was explained very clearly by my noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, in another place, that there are the three alternatives. One may dedicate, one may decide to carry on afforestation without dedication, or, under the 1945 Act, it is clearly possible to purchase compulsorily."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1947; Vol. 433, C. 1220.]
Under this Clause those who dedicate and abide by the clauses of the covenant are protected from compulsory acquisition of certain land under the terms of Section 4 of the Forestry Act of 1945, but those who manage their woods up to the same standard and did not in fact enter into a dedication covenant are not, as yet, allowed the same protection. I submit that if the object of the Government's forestry policy is to secure good woods those who practise good forestry should be given the same protection, even if they do not enter into a forestry dedication covenant.
We have seen that the financial aid which is offered to private woodland owners under certain conditions may really be of no benefit at all, and it can work out in practice that more people may find no advantage in accepting this than was at first supposed, and, in consequence, no advantage in entering into a covenant, which, as we have heard, may be very difficult to contract out of. I suggest that there is very much to be said for extending the protection. The Lord Chancellor said, in another place, that he wished good luck to those who managed their woods up to a good standard even if they did not dedicate, and I think this House might add to that message of good luck and offer real and effective protection.

Earl Winterton: I do not think any party question can possibly arise over this matter. I want to support everything which has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), and to make a strong appeal to the Minister to accept this Amendment. Within my personal knowledge, in the South of England, where there is a great deal of forestry, there are several forestry estates, small and large, which are being managed on a high level of efficiency. In some cases, if I may mention a personal instance of an estate owned by myself, they are subject to supervision by voluntary arrangement entered into with the Forestry Commission. That is to say, planting and filling and so on are done on the advice of the forestry supervisor. I cannot see anything logical in insisting that an estate in that position shall be dedicated or taken over by the Forestry Commission.
There may be reasons, as my hon. Friend very rightly said, why the owner does not wish to dedicate. He may have conscientious objections to receiving the grant to which he is entitled under dedication. Surely, the object of this Bill is to see that all land purporting to be woodlands shall be properly managed. Woodlands can be managed in three ways, by the Forestry Commission, by dedication, or under a system of private ownership, which, as far as the Commission is concerned, is subject, in the words of the Amendment, to "the rules or practice a good forestry." The words of the Amendment are sufficiently strong to ensure that the land is properly used. Surely, on pratical grounds, there is a case to be made out for land which is properly managed remaining in the private ownership of the person who manages it. I cannot see any argument whatever against this Amendment on logical grounds, on grounds of public policy, or on grounds of public expenditure.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I should like to reinforce the plea which has been made. Since the object of the Bill is to ensure good afforestation and management of woodlands whether dedicated or not, I cannot see why the woodland owner who does not wish to dedicate should not receive exactly the same protection as the owner who wishes to dedicate his woodlands provided he manages his woodlands according to the


rules and practice of good forestry. Whether he decides to dedicate or not is surely his responsibility. If may be to his advantage to dedicate in certain cases and to his disadvantage in other cases, but there is no possible ground for discriminating between two woodland properties, both equally well managed, one of which is dedicated, and the other not dedicated, but subject to compulsory acquisition. I beg the Minister to treat the Amendment with the consideration it deserves.

Colonel Ropner: I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment, and at the same time that he will be able to give me an answer to this specific question. If, unhappily, he does not accept the Amendment, will an owner situated as I am about to describe receive a grant, or not? I want the Minister to imagine a landowner who desires to dedicate a wood growing good timber but judged by the Forestry Commission, for one reason or another, to be unsuitable for acceptance in a dedication scheme. I want the Minister to note particularly that I am saying that this piece of land grows good trees and is being properly managed. If this particular wood is not accepted by the Forestry Commission for dedication, will it receive a grant of any sort whatsoever?

9.30 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: In the case of the land referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), if it is to be planted from now on, certain grants will be available to the owner, even though the land may not be dedicated. The Amendment that has been moved is an extension of Clause 5, which was put into the Bill in another place to safeguard those who have dedicated their woodlands from being purchased compulsorily under the 1945 Act, if they are conforming to the rules of good forestry. I readily concede that Clause 5 is an improvement in the Bill, and if all the conditions are being fulfilled, there is no logical reason why the dedication scheme should be disturbed; but this Amendment goes much further, and would include land which is not dedicated, but which is in forestry, and, presumably, is being fairly well managed. The Amendment, taken with the next Amendment, would mean that

the owner would have a right to go to arbitration to decide whether or not the land was being afforested properly.
It seems to me there is no reason for this Amendment. If land is to be acquired compulsorily, as the noble Lord will know—and as he is a good old Parliamentary hand, I am sure he will approve of what I am about to say—under Section 4, (3), of the 1945 Act, coupled with Part II of the First Schedule, should the Commission decide compulsorily to purchase an area of woodland, or any land, in fact, notice of the proposal would have to be given to the public, and an order would not have effect unless it had first been confirmed by Parliament. I suggest to the noble Lord, who is the oldest of old Parliamentary hands, that the safeguard of Parliament is far greater than the safeguard of an arbitrator. That is exactly the position today without either of the two Amendments on the Order Paper.
The Amendment seeks to preserve from compulsory acquisition land which has not been dedicated, while the whole purpose of this small Bill is to encourage dedication schemes. There seems to be lurking in the minds of some hon. Members a fear that the Forestry Commission are in existence exclusively to dodge around the country and buy out all kinds of land, but particularly land that has been planted and well cared for. As a matter of fact, the Forestry Commission have not bought a square yard of land compulsorily yet. I cannot understand why there are these fears and apprehensions. I should have thought that, instead of pressing these two Amendments upon the Government, hon. Members opposite would do far better to rely upon the last word in Parliament rather than the mere word of an outside arbitrator. For those reasons, and not because of stupidity or of unwillingness to be reasonable to hon. Members opposite, but because I think that Parliament is the best safeguard for the landowner, I prefer not to accept the Amendment.

Earl Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to me, so may I ask him a direct question because I am still in doubt as to the policy behind this Clause? Is it the view of the Minister, and the view of the Commission for which he speaks in this Committee, that land which is in a perfectly proper position from the


forestry point of view, and has been so for 40 years, should be retained by the owner, or is it to be dedicated or taken over by the Forestry Commission?

Mr. Williams: I should have thought that land which is properly afforested, and has been for 40 years, in all probability will be allowed to remain where it is as long as the woodlands are reasonably well cared for.

Mr. Philips Price: I cannot see the season for the fears of hon. Members opposite as to what might happen if they do not dedicate, provided that the land has been properly kept up, and I do not see why they should receive any privileges. Surely the privileges should go to those who dedicate.

Earl Winterton: Nobody is asking for privileges. The hon. Gentleman should not make accusations of that kind. All we ask is to be left alone; that those who may not wish to dedicate, for conscientious or other reasons, should keep the ground. Is it a privilege to retain forestry land which is properly looked after?

Mr. Price: No, but I consider that such land should not be in a more favourable position. I consider that where any advantages arise out of this Measure, they should go first of all to those who dedicate.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I do not think the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) has understood this Amendment. Nobody who supports this Amendment asks for any privileges; all they ask is that a woodland area not dedicated, but managed properly, should receive the same degree of protection against compulsory acquisition as the woodland area properly managed subject to dedication. There is no question of privilege at all. The Minister's reply was a little revealing, because until now I was under the impression—and I certainly gave him credit for it—that he was primarily concerned with securing good afforestation. From the way he has rejected this Amendment, however, it seems that he is primarily concerned with effecting control over all woodland areas by the Forestry Commission, which is quite a different line and, in my view, a most disappointing one.

Mr. York: May I recall to the Minister a statement he made in the Second Reading Debate in answer to my hon. and

gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner)? In that statement he said quite clearly that he accepted in principle our Amendment. He said:
Quite obviously, if the area of land was suitable and the private woodland owner agreed to grow the right kind of timber, then it would be entirely in his hands to determine whether or not he would enter into a dedication scheme. If, however, he was not disposed to enter into a dedication scheme but allowed the area of land to grow nothing, and to run riot, then, and only then, would compulsory purchase be contemplated. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1947; Vol. 433, c. 1209.]
Here we have a definite assurance given by the Minister that only in cases where the land is not properly managed will it be acquired compulsorily. He said that in the interjection I have quoted, which obviously was a responsible statement. Yet now he refuses to accept that principle when we put it forward as an Amendment. Really, it does seem to me a little unreasonable when the Minister accepts a principle at one stage of a Bill only to refuse to accept it at a later stage.

Captain Crookshank: I hope the Minister will comment on that very relevant statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York).

Mr. T. Williams: I will.

Captain Crookshank: Well, the right hon. Gentleman did not rise to do so. At any rate, I have that assurance from him. But this is the same trouble that we have had all the time with the Minister of Agriculture, whose words we entirely respect, but who has got into the terribly bad habit of trying to legislate by assurances. We have had it on the Committee stage of another Bill, day after day, and now we have it here. If he does not intend to stick to what he said—and the words just quoted made clear what his intentions were, and are almost word for word what we have put into our Amendment—and if he is not prepared to accept these words, I am afraid we must consider that what he said on that occasion is absolutely valueless, or, what is very unlikely in the case of the right hon. Gentleman, that he was talking with his tongue in his cheek.

Mr. Williams: Talking with my tongue in my cheek is one of those Parliamentary preoccupations, indulged in by some people, but in which I rarely indulge myself. I can repeat, word for word, to the


hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) the same assurance that I gave during the Second Reading Debate.

Mr. York: Then why not accept the Amendment?

Mr. Williams: It appears to be of no value to give an assurance at all. What hon. Members are seeking tonight is amendment of the 1945 Act, by means of these two very simple Amendments. Now, the 1945 Act was passed by the Coalition Government, not by the Labour Government. It gave the Forestry Commission powers of compulsory acquisition. I wonder it the hon. Member for Ripon, or the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), or the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), or the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), opposed that power at that time? I am sure they did not. Yet what they are asking for in these two Amendments is, in effect, amendment of the 1945 Act, which they all supported. I repeat to hon. Members opposite, that there can be no compulsory acquisition by the Forestry Commission of land, either planted or not planted, without, first, having given the ordinary public notice, and, finally, Parliament having the last word as to whether that acquisition can take place or not. Surely, Parliament is the right place in which to have the last word? I have heard the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) argue in favour of that scores of times within the past 24 years, saying that Parliament itself is supreme. Now, for once in a while, curiously enough the noble Lord falls from the very high pedestal, on which I had always placed him Parliamentarily, to the lowest level, when he puts an arbitrator in front of Parliament itself.

Mr. Vane: Since I had not a chance of opposing the 1945 Act here, perhaps I may be allowed to add a few words. The Minister knows that I am no opponent of dedication, and that there is nothing behind this Amendment which is intended to encourage people not to dedicate. But the longer and the more closely one looks at this scheme, the fewer benefits seem likely to accrue to a large number of woodland owners. We have to remember, too, that these grants, on which a certain

amount of emphasis has been laid, are likely to be reviewed after five years, and, perhaps very soon, will probably disappear altogether. In consequence, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman must agree that it may probably be to the great advantage of some owners not to dedicate. In those cases I fail to see why he should not offer protection in this Bill—which is the Forestry Bill, 1947, and not the Forestry Act, 1945—instead of leaving us to rely on his assurances. Finally, I say that we are not seeking to substitute an arbitrator for Parliament. That is not the intention at all. The intention is that an arbitrator should first decide that the rules of good forestry are not being observed before the powers of acquisition under the 1945 Act should begin to be put into operation. If those powers are put into operation, then Parliament, in due course, has the opportunity of having the last word. I think our Amendment is a very innocent one, and I hope that, even at the last minute, the Minister will change his mind.

9.45 p.m.

Earl Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman devoted most of his speech to my most admirable qualities as a Parliamentarian. I should not he in Order if I followed him in those remarks. But I cannot resist putting on record my astonishment at the statement made by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Philips Price). In the opinion of the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean an owner of woodlands who seeks no advantages from the State, neither the money he can receive by compulsory purchase or compulsory letting, nor the money he would receive under dedication, but merely carries on his estate as, hitherto, he has carried it on, is seeking privileges for himself. That is the most astonishing statement I have heard from one who purports to have a knowledge of the countryside.

Mr. Philips Price: What the noble Lord is seeking to do is to protect those owners who are too much prejudiced—there are very few of them—and who do not like to have Forestry Commission officials going about on their property. I say that an Amendment of this kind will indulge those people, and that legislation should not do so.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 91; Noes, 228.

Division No. 115.]
AYES.
[9.44 p.m.


Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.
Howard, Hon A.
Ramsay, Maj. S.


Baldwin, A. E.
Hurd, A.
Roberts, H. (Handsworth)


Bennett, Sir P.
Hutchison, Ll.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)


Birch, Nigel
Hutchison, Col J. R. (Glasgow, C.)
Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland


Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)
Jennings, R.
Ropner, Col. L.


Bowen, R.
Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)


Bower, N.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Scott, Lord W.


Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)
Lindsay, M. (Solihull)
Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)


Carson, E.
Lipson, D. L.
Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.


Challen, G.
Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)
Smith, E. P. (Ashford)


Clarke, Col. R. S.
McCallum, Maj. D.
Spearman, A. C. M.


Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M


Cooper-Key, E. M.
McKie, J. H. (Galloway)
Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)


Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)
Maitland, Comdr. J. W.
Sutcliffe, H.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Cuthbert, W. N.
Marsden, Capt. A.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Marshall, D. (Bodmin)
Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. K.


Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith)
Maude, J. C.
Vane, W. M. F.


Drayson, G. B.
Mellor, Sir J.
Wadsworth, G.


Drewe, C.
Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)
Walker-Smith, D.


Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)
Morrison, Rt. Hon W S. (Cirencester)
Ward, Hon. G. R.


Erroll, F. J.
Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E.
Wheatley, Colonel M. J.


Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.
Neven-Spence, Sir B.
White, Sir D. (Fareham)


Gage, C.
Nicholson, G.
Williams, C. (Torquay)


Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.
Noble, Comdr. A. H. P
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke)
Osborne, C.
York, C.


Glossop, C. W. H.
Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)


Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)
Peto, Brig. C. H. M.



Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V.
Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hogg, Hon Q.
Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.
Mr. Studholme and


Hollis, M. C.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.
Major Conant.


Hope, Lord J.
Raikes, H. V.





NOES.


Adams, Richard (Balham)
Daggar, G
Hamilton, Lieut -Col. R.


Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)
Daines, P.
Hannan, W. (Maryhill)


Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)
Davies, Edward (Burslem)
Hardy, E. A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield)
Hastings, Dr. Somerville


Alpass, J. H.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)


Anderson, A. (Motherwell)
Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S W.)
Herbison, Miss M.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Davits, R. J. (Westhoughton)
Hobson, C R.


Attewell, H. C.
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Holman, P.


Awbery, S. S.
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)


Bacon, Miss A.
Delargy, H. J.
Hoy, J.


Baird, J.
Diamond, J.
Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)


Balfour, A.
Dobbie, W.
Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)


Barton, C.
Driberg, T. E. N.
Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)


Battley, J. R
Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)
Irving, W. J.


Bechervaise, A. E-
Dumpleton, C. W.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.


Berry, H.
Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)
Jeger, G. (Winchester)


Beswick, F.
Edwards, W. J. (Whltechapel)
Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)


Bing, G. H. C.
Evans, E. (Lowestoft)
John, W.


Blyton, W. R.
Evans, John (Ogmore)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Shipley)


Boardman, H.
Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)
Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)


Bottomley, A. G.
Fairhurst, F.
Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)


Bowdan, Flg.-Offr. H. W.
Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.)
Jones, J. H. (Bolton)


Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)
Follick, M.
Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)
Forman, J. C.
Keenan, W


Braddock, T. (Mitcham)
Foster, W. (Wigan)
Kenyon, C.


Bramall, Major E. A.
Fraser, T. (Hamilton)
King, E. M.


Brook, D. (Halifax)
Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford)
Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.


Brown, T. J. (Ince)
Gallacher, W.
Kinley, J.


Burke, W. A.
Gibbins, J.
Kirby, B. V.


Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)
Gibson, C. W.
Lang, G.


Carmichael, James
Glanville, J. E. (Consett)
Lee, F. (Hulme)


Champion, A. J.
Goodrich, H. E.
Lewis, T. (Southampton)


Cobb, F. A.
Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)
Lindgren, G. S.


Cocks, F. S.
Grey, C. F.
Longden, F.


Coldrick, W.
Grierson, E.
Lyne, A. W.


Collick, P.
Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)
McAdam, W.


Collins, V. J.
Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)
McGovern, J.


Colman, Miss G. M.
Guest, Dr. L. Haden
Mack, J. D.


Comyns, Dr. L
Gunter, R. J.
Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)


Cook, T. F.
Guy, W. H.
McKinlay, A. S.


Corbet, Mrs. F K. (Camb'well, N.W.)
Haire, John E. (Wycombe)
Maclean, N. (Govan)


Corlett, Dr. J.
Hale, Leslie
McLeavy, F.


Cove, W. G.
Hall, W. G.
Macpherson, T. (Romlord)




Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. H
Timmons, J.


Mathers, G.
Randall, H. E.
Titterington, M F.


Medland, H. M.
Ranger, J.
Tolley, L.


Mellish, R. J.
Rankin, J.
Tomlinson, Rt Hon. G.


Mikardo, Ian.
Rhodes, H.
Viant, S. P.


Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R
Richards, R
Walker, G. H.


Mitchison, G. R.
Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)
Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)


Moody, A. S.
Ross, William (Kilmarnock)
Watkins, T. E.


Morgan, Dr. H. B.
Royle, C.
Weitzman, D.


Morley, R.
Scollan, T.
Wells, W. T. (Walsall)


Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)
Sharp, Granville
West, D. G.


Murray, J. D.
Shawcoross, C. N. (Widnes)
White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Nally, W.
Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)
Wigg, Col. G. E.


Naylor, T. E.
Shurmer, P.
Wilkins, W. A.


Neal, H. (Claycross)
Silverman, J. (Erdington)
Willey, F. T. (Sutherland)


Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.)
Simmons, C. J.
Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)


Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)
Smith, C. (Colchester)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke)
Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)


Noel-Buxton, Lady
Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Oldfield, W. H.
Sorensen, R. W.
Williams, W. R. (Heston)


Oliver, G. H.
Soskice, Maj. Sir F.
Williamson, T.


Paget, R. T.
Stamford, W.
Willis, E.


Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)
Steele, T.
Wills, Mrs. E. A.


Palmer, A. M. F.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wilson, J. H.


Parkin, B. T.
Stress, Dr. B.
Wise, Major F. J.


Paton, J. (Norwich)
Swingler, S.
Woodburn, A.


Pearson, A.
Sylvester, G. O.
Woods, G. S.


Peart, Capt. T. F.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)
Yates, V. F.


Plans-Mills, J. F. F.
Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Porter, E. (Warrington)
Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)
Younger, Hon. Kenneth


Porter, G. (Leeds)
Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)
Zilliacus, K.


Price, M. Philips
Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)



Pritt, D. N.
Thurtle, E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Proctor, W. T.
Tiffany, S.
Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Snow.


Question put, and agreed to

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

CLAUSE 6.—(Deduction of grants from compensation.)

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I beg to move, in page 4, line 28, to leave out "advances," and to insert:
amount of the advances after deducting therefrom any income tax and surtax charged and paid thereon.
This Amendment raises the whole question of whether forestry grants are regarded as income or capital, and, accordingly, whether they are or are not taxable. If they are regarded as income, then, of course, they are subject to tax, if the woodland owner is assessed under Schedule D. He will, in that event, receive a proportion of the grant according to the rate of his tax assessment. It seems unjust to us that, when repayment is asked for, in the event of his woodlands being compulsorily acquired, he should have to repay the whole amount of the grant and that the 3 per cent. rate of interest should be calculated on the whole amount. I suggest that it is very doubtful whether it would be permissible to claim tax against the interest, because it would be a deduction against the compensation received, and I should have thought that the compensation received would be regarded as a capital sum against which no tax allowance would be

deducted. The object of this Amendment is to make quite certain that Income Tax and Surtax are deducted from the advances, for the purpose of repayment calculations under this Bill, at the rate of tax current when the grants were received, as, otherwise, we might easily get the anomalous situation where the current rate of tax differed from the rate paid on the original grants.

10.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Frank Soskice): If I may say so without offence, I thought I detected a slight confusion in the mind of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe) between the interest charged and the grant itself. In point of fact, what will happen is almost exactly what the Amendment aims to introduce. What will happen is this. In so far as the 3 per cent. is concerned, that will rank for ordinary Income Tax and Surtax purposes as a charge against income, and it will be available as a deduction both for Income Tax and Surtax. That is the interest, but that is one item only. The other question is the grant itself. The position with regard to that is that, when an owner receives a grant, it may be taxed under Schedule D. Perhaps I should digress to say that he has the option, under Rule 7, to be taxed under either Schedule D


or Schedule B. He can exercise an option and be charged under Schedule B by which he pays a fixed charge of one-third of the annual value. He can also elect to be charged under Schedule D in which case he is charged tax on the annual balance of his profits and gains. Suppose that he is taxed under Schedule D. If he gets a grant for revenue purposes, the grant is counted as a revenue item and is subject to tax, and, equally, the revenue expenditure which he incurs and upon which he expends that grant is allowed as a deduction against his profits. He brings it in on one side and pays tax, and on the other, he deducts it as a revenue expense on appropriate grounds and gets a deduction.
When an owner, as an owner, has land compulsorily acquired, and he receives compensation, there will be deducted from the compensation the amount of the grant he has received. But, inasmuch as that grant was originally regarded as a revenue item, when he repays it, it will be equally regarded as a revenue expense and, therefore, he will be allowed to set out that expense against his income and thus save tax on it. What the Amendment really does is that it asks for Income Tax and Surtax charged upon the grant should be deducted. That would not work out administratively. One charges upon a balance of profits, and what will be done is that the amount of the grant will be allowed as a revenue expense and will proportionately reduce profits both for Income Tax and Surtax.

Captain Crookshank: When the learned Solicitor-General says that these things will be done, does he mean by administrative practice?

The Solicitor-General: It will be done because, in the ordinary way a revenue expenditure goes to reduce profits. The Amendment would not affect the position, but it would, in its drafting, not be possible to work it. There will be variations of tax and it is true that an owner who received a grant when tax was low and has to repay when tax is high will benefit, and, vice versa, he will lose if tax falls. But the Act is designed to run for a great many years, and tax will go up and down and in some cases the man will lose, and in some cases he will gain on the balance. It would be fair that his loss or gain should vary according to whether Income Tax gags up or down.
In point of fact, it would not be practicable, in the case of many grants that were made many years ago, to discover exactly what the tax appropriate to those grants was, so that it would be very difficult to work out arithmetically. I ask the Committee, in view of the explanation which I have sought to give, to say that the position as it is is satisfactory, and that it is not necessary for this Amendment to be made in the Bill.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for clearing up that point. There was a good deal of doubt in many quarters as to the tax position. In view of the hon. and learned Gentleman's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I beg to move, in page 4, line 34, to leave out "the rate of," and to insert "a rate not exceeding."
It would, I think, be convenient to discuss together with this Amendment the next Amendment, in line 37, at the end, to insert:
Provided that in determining the rate of interest payable under this Section the Commissioners shall have regard to the age and type of the timber growing on the said land.
If woods are acquired by reason of the mismanagement of the owner within 30 years of the date of planting, under the Bill the planting grant, the maintenance grant, and interest at three per cent. per annum will be deducted from the compensation which the owner receives in respect of the acquisition of his woods. In our view, three per cent. is too high for a fixed rate of interest, and, moreover, it ignores the age and type of timber grown. For instance, a 29 years old beech or oak plantation would certainly not earn three per cent. on the grants received on the previous 29 years. The object of the Amendment is to ensure that the rate of interest repayable by the owner for compensation shall vary according to the type, the age and the quality of the timber in the woodland concerned, because in the early days of a plantation the rate of growth, particularly in the case of hard woods, is not nearly as high as three per cent. We consider that three per cent. should be the upper limit, and that if it were adhered to


rigidly, irrespective of whether woodlands are hard wood or soft wood, it would be an unfair rate.

Colonel Clarke: I wish to support what was said by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe). I see no reason why 3 per cent. should continue as a flat even rate. Trees do not grow at a flat even rate, nor do various types of trees increase at the same value. There is also the fact that at certain ages trees pass from one money class to another. This year, for example, a plantation may be worth 8d. a cubic foot, but in 15 years' time, in addition to the increment of wood which has grown during the 15 years, it may have passed into another money group, and in addition to being larger trees, the wood may have greater value, and may be 10d. or 1s. a cubic foot. There is great unevenness in the natural growth and increase, and it is wrong that 3 per cent. should be based on what, I think, is called geometrical progress when the progress of growth is not even arithmetical. We ask in the Amendment that the actual condition of the plantation shall be taken into account when assessing the interest rate. I hope that point will be considered.

Mr. Gallacher: Hon. Gentlemen opposite are often in the habit of declaring that Socialism is a materialist philosophy and that it lacks spiritual force; but listen to them, when there is any money involved. They are always after more graft for the landowners. I ask the Minister why he should allow this Committee to be turned into a sort of Wailing Wall. Why does he not nationalise the land and put hon. Gentlemen opposite out of pain?

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): The reason why we have three per cent. in the Clause as the rate to be charged on grants is that it was fixed for loans that might be made available to landowners under the scheme. It seemed appropriate that we should fix the same rate of interest to the grants that might become repayable under the Clause. I am assured that it would be most difficult for the Commission to use the yardstick suggested in the Amendment. Supporters of the Amendment would give a right of discretion to the Forestry Commissioners, if they could foresee circumstances in which they

would be warranted in departing from the three per cent. We are not merely concerned with the age or the type of tree but with the amount of grant payable, and which has now, perforce, to be repaid. We consider that the percentage to be paid on the money ought not to be different from the percentage on the loan for the same purpose. For those reasons we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Charles Williams: We have had one of the most typical Whitehall answers. We are dealing with a loan which is dependent upon trees, and the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland says that we must keep our eyes fixed on the loan and not on the trees on which it is being paid. He said in the very charming way we always expect from those who have a nice Civil Service brief and who have no knowledge of the countryside, that we must not think of the age of the trees, but simply of the loan. I would like to know whether the Law Officers have put the Joint Under-Secretary of State up to that answer, or whether it was merely the Minister of Agriculture. I do not know. The proposal we have put forward is a practical one, although it might be a little difficult of administration; but look at the hundreds of thousands of superfluous officials that the Government could turn on to this job. I will not develop that point any further. I was trying to anticipate what might be the argument. No reason has been given to us why this Amendment should not be considered.
The only reason against the Amendment that I can think of is that it might be difficult to balance the large cubic capacity and the growing capacity of the various trees for which compensation is payable. If that is the real reason for the objection of the Government to this Amendment, as I presume it is, I have shown them a way out. I will leave it there, because, obviously, it is not a thing of which the Government have thought.
10.15 p.m.
Under this Amendment there is something practicable. I believe that we should try extracting compensation for forestry in these matters. I am not thinking of forests like the Forest of Dean but of the great forests of the country and I am looking at this question from a practical point of view. There are other places


besides the Forest of Dean, and I say guile frankly, that to pay compensation on this three per cent. basis, in some cases on trees which are well over 100, years old, is quite impossible. To take the viewpoint of fixing three per cent. is most insulting to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, because he is working on an entirely different basis today. For that reason I think the compensation should be very much lower than three per cent., unless the Minister really wants to go against the Chancellor's wishes. May I be allowed to say one other thing? Forestry does not particularly affect my constituency, but I thoroughly agree with one hon. Member in all these matters, that it is best to agree to what the Communist Party boss asks for. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends opposite must respect the miners' leader. He says that we must not give too much to the landowner. I think that that is right. We should not give too much money to any section of the community, but we should always safeguard the funds of the community. Nothing would induce me to appeal for more money for any section of the community except on the basis of what is absolutely fair and practicable. For that reason I hope that this Amendment will be considered by the Government, and that for once they will see their way to deal with the Treasury on this matter and try to meet the views of the Opposition.

Mr. Philips Price: I am sorry to detain the Committee but the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) referred to the Forest of Dean. However, that was not the real reason why I rose. I want to say that the idea behind this Amendment is a good one, but to my mind it is absolutely impracticable, for the simple reason that it would be most difficult to relate the interest to a basis of the age and condition of various trees. In a forest in this country there may be hard and soft woods, and a general mixture which would make the task one of great difficulty. How can such a plan be applied when one area might earn 2 per cent. and another 3 per cent.? The thing will not work. Certainly, if we had the big forests like there are on the Continent, where there are thousands of acres of the same kind of tree, it might be possible. In practice, such a scheme would not work here. The idea is certainly a good one,

but in practice it would not work, particularly in the home counties of England.

Amendment negatived.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: I beg to move, in page 4, to leave out lines 38 to 42.
We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us what this proviso means. It is in order to obtain this explanation that we move the Amendment. Does it mean the case where a portion only of a woodland property is compulsorily acquired or, on the other hand, does it refer to a case where a person who is liable to repay the grant is the owner of a leasehold property? As I read the Subsection it might refer to either of those two cases, but perhaps the Minister can tell us what it does mean.

The Solicitor-General: We on this side of the Committee thought that this proviso was rather necessary, and I will endeavour to explain why. If the proviso w ere not inserted the result would be this. Supposing you had a forest which is let out to a leaseholder and which is owned by a freeholder—that is, there are two interests, a freehold interest and a leasehold. When compensation comes to be payable upon a compulsory acquisition of those two interests the deduction of grants will have to be made in full, first as against the amount which is paid to the leaseholder and then, secondly, in full against the amount which is paid to the freeholder. In other words, deduction would have to be made twice over and the object of the proviso is simply to prevent that. Where there are two interests—a leasehold and a freehold—both of which are being acquired, then when you are making your deduction from the compensation, you apportion to each interest that amount of the deduction which is appropriate to the value of that interest. If the proviso is deleted, it will work most unfairly upon persons who own leasehold or freehold interests in forest land because each will have to pay the full amount of grant. If hon. Members look at the first part of the Clause I think that they will agree that that is the effect because it provides that when a grant has been made, and an interest in the land compulsorily acquired, the amount of the grant has to be deducted. The consequence would be that the full amount of the grant would have to be deducted from the amount of


the compensation payable to each of the holders. That would obviously be grossly unfair and the proviso is designed to prevent that. In these circumstances I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Vane: Can the Solicitor-General say whether the proviso will also apply in this kind of case? Assume that a certain owner receives grants in respect of a woodland and later sells it to two persons, one of whom manages it according to the rules of good forestry while the other fails to do so. The interest of the man who fails, is acquired by the State on behalf of the Forestry Commission. In that case, would the division of the amount due in respect of the original grant, plus interest, be decided by this proviso? If so, this would necessitate going through the same process of valuation which has just been rejected as impossible under the previous two Amendments.

The Solicitor-General: That case would not come within the terms of the proviso at all. There would be purchase of only one interest—namely, that of the person who had bought the land and was using it for forestry purposes.

Mr. McKie: The Solicitor-General has given a very fair explanation of this proviso, and has dealt with the point as far as England is concerned. I would point out, however, that leaseholds do not exist in Scotland. I am sorry that the Lord Advocate is not present to deal with the case of Scotland, but I would ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to be good enough to assure me that no interest in Scotland will be adversely affected by the passage of this Bill in its present form.

Mr. Thomas Fraser: Of course we have leaseholds in Scotland.

Mr. McKie: No.

Mr. Fraser: We have leases in perpetuity, but they are called feus. What has been said about leaseholds in England would apply equally in the case of Scotland.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 7 and 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — FORESTRY BILL [Lords]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Vane: We have had a most disappointing hour and a half. All the Amendments proposed by us in the Committee stage have been rejected. I say, in all seriousness, that a very big chance has been missed. Our proposals were all concerned with the improvement of the Bill and involved no great changes in principle. If the question of arbitration had received a greater measure of generosity, the Minister would have done a certain amount to dispel—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I must point out that we are now entitled to discuss only what is in the Bill, and not what the hon. Member hoped might have been put in the Bill.

Mr. Vane: I was trying to say that we have missed a great chance to improve this Bill. This Bill depends on the relationship between the Forestry Commission and private woodland owners, and on that foundation will depend its success. Everything in this Bill has been written in the light of what the Minister believes this relationship to be. The Forestry Commission and private woodland owners are being invited to enter into certain covenants, which is a novelty in this country. The Minister has miscalculated the relationship which exists between the Forestry Commission and private woodland owners, and in consequences, he has miscalculated the strength of the foundations on which this Bill has been built. I regret that it is unlikely as a result to achieve the rapid measure of success we should have liked. It is not very long ago since the Forestry Commission entered into operations, and like many novelties, it was met at first with a measure of resentment, a great deal of which was unjustified. Instead of meeting that resentment with a certain amount of tact, they conducted themselves in rather a colonial manner in the countryside, and people in some quarters still believe their attitude towards private forestry has been one of contempt.
I do not want to pursue this subject very far, or I shall be ruled out of Order. But I hope that the Minister did not altogether reject the pamphlet on postwar


forestry which was produced about the same time as the White Paper. It is possible, of course, that his advisers in the Forestry Commission may have concealed this from him, but he will find in that pamphlet, on page 15, a very fair, constructive criticism of these relations which are the very foundation on which the success of this Bill depends. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will bear this in mind, and do all he can to dispel those misgivings which may remain. I do not wish to quote at any length, but he will see that there is criticism of what—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member is going beyond my Ruling, and is not dealing with what is in the Bill. He is now, I understand, discussing another document altogether.

Mr. Vane: I was about to refer to the attitude taken by the Forestry Commission, in reply to a certain report made to them by their consultative committee on the question that there should be more elasticity in the system under which private woodlands are transferred to the State. I feel that what the Government are proposing in this Bill is a reflection of that attitude. I hope that the Minister will in future do all he can to show that that opinion, which may have been held in the Forestry Commission some time ago, is held no longer, otherwise this Bill is on a shifting foundation, and will surely fail.

10.32 p.m.

Mr. Charles Williams: I think that, for once, a large part of the House will agree with me when I say that we all wish to see this Forestry Bill go well. There must be few people in this country who do not realise that under the system of dedication as laid down in this Bill, there is a real chance of developing and improving forestry in this country. That, as I understand it, is the main object of Clause 1 of the Bill. It is not merely a question of improving already existing woodland, but also of restoring those woodlands which have been destroyed, or rather cut, during the war. That is an object with which we all agree, and it is one in regard to which there has been a very great deal of support for this Bill. I do not with, at this late hour, to be critical of details of the various Clauses of the Bill itself, but if this system of dedication is to work, then it is quite certain that there must be con-

fidence on both sides; on the side of the Forestry Commission, as well as on the side of the owner. There should be in the Bill a Clause which would bring that confidence into being, to enable both parties to work together for the common object. I regret that as the Bill stands it is not, as effective for that purpose as it might be. I will not, however, go into details; we have already discussed those. All I wish to say is that I regret that the Government have not been very amenable to the persuasion of those who really understand this subject. I regret that they have not taken advice offered to them, and I deeply regret that a Bill of this magnitude—and of such vital importance to England, Scotland and to Wales—should be taken at this time of night in a small House; and that the Committee stage had to be taken so late this evening.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I must point out that the hon. Member has not said one word about what is in the Bill. No one knews better than he does that that is the only subject which can be discussed on Third Reading.

Mr. C. Williams: Of course, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I accept, as always, your Ruling. I will not go into that matter in any detail. I regret that the Bill is as it stands; I think it should have been a much better Bill, and that its effect will only be half as good as it might have been, but for the incompetence of the Government.

10.35 p.m.

Major Mott-Radclyffe: The Minister of Agriculture mentioned a point concerning the grant for woodlands which had not been dedicated but which were properly maintained. I understand that certain grants would be available in those circumstances, but the Minister did not say which grant. Such information as I have obtained is in the reverse sense, and I only wanted to know—

M. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that question arises on the Bill.

Major Mott-Radelyffe: It was an interpretation of what was in the Bill, and was referred to by the Minister on the Committee stage.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Thomas Williams): I should not be allowed by you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to


go into Committee points on Third Reading, but if I have created any false impression, I will clear it up later with the hon. and gallant Member.

10.37 p.m.

Captain Crookshank: We will take note of that, and, perhaps, if the right hon. Gentleman did make a mistake, he will arrange to answer a Question, so that everybody can have the information? We are sorry the Minister was unable to accept any of the Amendments, but we wish the Bill well. This is the final stage of a very important Measure, and it is unusual, insofar as this House is concerned, in that it originated in another place, and came to us after considerable discussion. It is indeed, just a machinery Bill. It introduces, however, a very important new principle in the dedication covenants, which we entirely accept. We think this is the right way, in present circumstances, in which to tackle this problem, and I thank the Minister very much for doing something for which we had asked, namely, providing draft deeds of covenant, which are referred to throughout the Bill. We did not think we could consider the matter satisfactorily unless we knew what sort of covenant could be drawn up between the Commission and the covenanter. The Minister has made them available, and we are extremely grateful to him. The timber position in this country is very serious, and is likely to continue to be serious for a long time, as a result of the destructive havoc of two wars in a comparatively short period in the lifetime of trees. We hope this scheme—which did not entirely originate with this Government at all, but which had been discussed for a long time and had the general approval of all parties—will work out successfully. We can only hope that what we thought were the Minister's mistakes were not, in fact, mistakes at all, but that the Minister was right and we were wrong. I think that is rather doubtful, but we wish the Bill well.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams: All I wish to do is to express my thanks to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and hon. Gentlemen opposite for trying to improve the Bill. I should like to add that, if there has been an impression in the countryside

that the Forestry Commission are anti-landlord, I should deprecate that myself. I hope this will be the beginning of a better relationship all round, so that we can get on with afforestation on a large scale. In reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Windsor (Major Mott-Radclyffe), there is a £10 grant for land which is not suitable for dedication.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — POLISH RESETTLEMENT BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

CLAUSE 9.—(Provisions as to discipline and internal administration of certain Polish forces.)

Lords Amendment: In page 9, line 26, leave out from "person" to "who" in line 28, and insert:
holding or having held a rank not below that of Major-General in the Army or a corresponding rank in another of the Armed Forces of the Crown.

10.41 p.m.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
As the Bill left this House, it required that the person appointed to be the administrator should be one appearing to the Secretary of State to have a good knowledge and to be experienced in the administration of British military law. That phrase was criticised to a certain extent in this House. I paid attention to the criticism and endeavoured to find a form of words that would more exactly and accurately define the person who should be appointed. I hope that major-generals in the Army, or persons of corresponding rank in the other Armed Forces of the Crown fulfil the quite general requirements of the previous definition, and I recommend the House to accept the Amendment.

Lords Amendment: In page 10, line 9, after "fit", insert:
being an officer or officers serving or having served in the said forces or in any of the Armed Forces of the Crown.

Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
Here again, these words define more accurately the persons to whom the administrator can delegate his functions. They are persons who are in or who have previously served either in the Polish Army or in the Armed Forces of this country, and I am quite sure that this will make for the smooth working of the Measure.

Orders of the Day — PRIVILEGES

The Solicitor-General discharged from the Committee of Privileges; the Attorney-General added.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT

Resolved: "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Michael Stewart.]

Adjourned accordingly at Eighteen Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.